SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(HP) 739

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KAROL, RAJIV SHARMA, JJ.
SUNITA - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HP - Respondents
CWP No. 10085 of 2012 I
Decided On : October 04, 2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
T.S.CHAUHAN, Sharwan Dogra, R.S.VERMA, R.M.BISHT, SURENDER VERMA

Encroachment on government land by family members leading to disqualification under municipal act.

Headnote:

Election Disqualification - Municipal Council Ward Member - The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the order disqualifying the petitioner from completing her tenure as a ward member of Municipal Council Sunder Nagar due to encroachment on government land by her family members.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner contested and won the election for the post of Ward Member but was challenged by a private respondent who alleged that the petitioner's family members had encroached upon government/municipal land, leading to disqualification under Section 16(1)(c) of the HP Municipal Act, 1994.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's family members had indeed encroached upon government land, and an order for ejectment had been passed against them. The court concluded that an encroacher cannot be allowed to continue and discharge public function, and therefore dismissed the petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was disqualified from completing her tenure as a ward member due to the encroachment on government land by her family members.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the petitioner's family members had encroached upon government land, leading to disqualification under the relevant municipal act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim order, upholding the disqualification of the petitioner from completing her tenure as a ward member.

JUDGEMENT

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. PETITIONER has prayed mainly for following reliefs:

"i). That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the impugned order as contained in Annexure P 2 and P 3. ii). That a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to allow the petition to complete her normal tenure as ward member of Municipal Council Sunder Nagar."

2. ANNEXURE P 2 is the order dated 27.12.2011 passed by the Authorised Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., which stands affirmed vide order dated 11.9.2012 (Annexure P 3) passed by the appellate authority i.e Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Election Appeal No. 1 of 2012 titled as Sunita versus Indira Devi.

For the post of Ward Member (Ward No. 11) Purana Bazar, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., petitioner (Sunita Devi) contested election and was elected. Assailing the same, private respondent (Indira Devi) filed an election petition, inter alia on the ground that family members of present petitioner had encroached upon the government/municipal land and as such petitioner entailed dis qualification in terms of Section 16(1)(c) of the HP Municipal Act, 1994.

3. THE authorities below have found family members of the petitioner to have encroached upon government land. Undisputedly, order for ejectment stands passed against family members of the petitioner, including her husband.

4. ORDER dated 23.6.2011 directing the petitioner's husband to remove the encroachment is placed on record as Annexure R 3/A. Significantly in these proceedings petitioner's husband and other family members took a plea that their possession over the suit land is adverse and hostile to that of the true owner i.e the State.

Under these circumstances, the present petition only merits rejection. An encroacher cannot be allowed to continue and discharge public function

5. WE do not find any infirmity, error or perversity in the orders passed by the authorities below and as such, the present petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 27.11.2012 stands vacated.

6. ALL pending application(s), if any, stand dismissed accordingly.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top