Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vidhyabhan @ Vidhyaman And Others vs Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Collector on 11 September, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 15073 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 15073 of 2013
Date of decision : 11.9.2013
Vidhyabhan @ Vidhyaman and others ........Petitioners
Vs.
Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Mahandergarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
Present:- Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, for respondent No.3
Mr. S.S. Kharab, Advocate, for respondents No. 12 to 15 & 17
---
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned orders dated 7.6.2013 (P-8) and 28.6.2013 (P-9), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the Collector, dismissing objections, filed by the petitioners, in an execution application on a ground that the petitioners were not party in the ejectment proceedings and there is no order of ejectment against them.
Further prayer of the petitioners is to issue directions to the official respondents not to eject them from Khasra No.325 being owner in possession, except by due process of law.
As per facts on record, one Prabhati and Nand Kishore, filed an application against respondents No.12 to 17, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.20 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 15073 of 2013 -2- claiming their ejectment, from the land, reserved for a passage. After getting demarcation report, application was allowed on 22.1.2013. Respondents No. 12 to 17 were ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. When passing that order, some observations were also made against the petitioners. Apprehending disturbance of their possession, they filed an objection application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, raising objections to the execution of that order against them.
Their objections were dismissed vide order dated 7.6.2013. They filed an appeal, which was dismissed, on 28.6.2013. It was observed that there is no provision to file objections against an execution application under the Act.
When notice of motion was issued on 17.7.2013, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was recorded :-
"Counsel for the petitioners states that in execution of the order passed against Nihal Singh etc., possession of the petitioners is going to be disturbed. In earlier litigation, reference to which has been made for taking possession in execution, the petitioners/their predecessor in interest were not the parties. Objections filed by the petitioners were rejected on technical ground."
It was noticed that in an order passed against somebody else, the petitioners' possession is going to be disturbed.
After notice, the Gram Panchayat has put in appearance through its counsel Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, who made a very fair statement that on the basis of order passed on 22.1.2003, in which the petitioners were not parties, construction/possession of the petitioners will not be disturbed.
Kumar Ashwani2013.09.20 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 15073 of 2013 -3-
In view of fair statement made by counsel for the Gram Panchayat, no grievance remains with the petitioners and the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. It is stated by Mr. Sangwan that action will be taken against those, who are party in the above said order and had encroached upon the public land.
Taking note of delay caused in ejecting the un-authorised occupants, it is directed to execute the order expeditiously, final action be taken preferably within six months.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge 11.9.2013 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.20 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document