Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 August, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Jain
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 1.8.2012
Om Parkash
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.
Present: Mr. B.S. Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. G.S. Beniwal, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 9737 of 2011 Civil Misc. Application is allowed.
Exemption is granted from filing of certified copies of Annexures R5/1 to R5/5.
Civil Misc. No. 9738 of 2011
Civil Misc. Application is allowed.
Written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.5 is taken on record.
Civil Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2011 (O&M) 2Civil Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2011 This writ petition has been filed praying that direction be issued to the official respondents to remove the unauthorized encroachments/constructions raised by the Municipal Council, Sonepat and others over the land which was requisitioned to rehabilitate those who had migrated from Pakistan. It is further stated that over the land in dispute, a Shopping Complex consisting of 66 shops was raised by the Municipal Council and rest of the land was kept vacant for the purpose of parking etc. Those shops were auctioned in the year 1969. In the area earmarked for parking in the open space, the Municipal Council, Sonepat, have constructed ten big shops and 16 small shops. Besides that, the private individuals have also encroached upon the land and constructed their shops. A prayer has been made to remove the unauthorized constructions.
Upon notice, reply has been filed by respondent No.3, wherein it is virtually admitted that construction of shops in dispute was raised under a mistaken belief that the land belongs to the Municipal Council, Sonepat. It is further stated that respondent No.3 is ready to extend any help to the Custodian Department for removal of the encroachments. It is further averred that on 27.10.2009 anti-encroachment drive was conducted by the District Administration and some unauthorizedly constructed shops were demolished and the persons who were inducted as tenants in the shops raised by the Municipal Council had been given notices to produce proof of ownership. Some of the tenants have filed civil suits challenging those notices and got interim injunction issued in Civil Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2011 (O&M) 3 their favour.
Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 4 by way of affidavit of Jitender Gandhi, Tehsildar (Sales), Sonepat. Paragraphs No. 2 to 4 thereof read thus:-
"2. That in the meantime, one Sh. Hoshiar Singh and some other persons encroached upon the land in front of this shopping centre and constructed some shops on this area unauthorizedly. Similarly, the municipal committee, Sonepat also constructed 10 Big shops and 16 small shops on this land and given the same on rent unauthorizedly. The purchasers of the shops of shopping centre were approached so many times to the High Authorities for removal of encroachment. The Higher Authorities were directed the E.O. M.C. For removal of encroachment but they did not do so as the litigations were pending between M.C. And unauthorizedly occupants. The result of the litigation was that a M.C. Can remove the encroachment only except in due course of law. It is also submitted here that the Rehabilitation Department was not made party in this litigation.
3. That last in the year 2009, the purchaser of the shopping centre again requested to the Deputy Commissioner Sonepat for removal of Civil Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2011 (O&M) 4 encroachment. Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat was asked the City Magistrate, Sonepat for enquiry in the matter. On receipt of enquiry report Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat ordered that Tehsildar (Sales), Sonepat along with Executive Officer, M.C., Sonepat to remove the unauthorized encroachment.
4. That in compliance with these orders on 27.10.2009, some encroachments were demolished which was in unauthorized occupation of private persons.
However, the other shop-keepers who were tenant in the shops constructed by the Municipal Committee requested the District Administration for giving the proof regarding their possession. Meanwhile those tenants approached the Civil Court and got interim stay in their favour. The two Civil Suits are pending in the Civil Court at Sonepat." Perusal of the above reproduced extract of replies filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 shows that some civil suits are pending in the Civil Courts and interim injunctions have been granted therein. From the reading of the contents of the writ petition and the respective replies, we find that it is virtually admitted that construction of the shops exists on the land, which forms part of the Planned Shopping Complex and that land is neither owned by the Municipal Council nor any other individual in possession.
Civil Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2011 (O&M) 5
Under the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition by issuing directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat to remove existing unauthorized constructions qua which there is no interim order passed by the competent Civil Court. In case, any civil suit is pending, the Municipal Council, Sonepat is directed to place on record of the said suit, a copy of the order passed by this Court and the written statements filed in this writ petition so that an appropriate order can be passed by the Civil Courts.
Civil Misc. Nos. 3810 and 9944 of 2012 In view of the order passed in the main case, both the applications have become infructuous and the same are disposed of as such.
(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge August 1, 2012 "DK"