Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURYA KANT, A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
Atma Ram (dead) through LRs – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 17888 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-08-2016
For the Petitioners:Shri Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Shri Rajiv Mittal & Alok Mittal, Advocates.
Shri Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent:Shri Aman Bansal, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's failure to challenge the acquisition proceedings and the dismissal of the previous civil suit barred him from maintaining the present writ petition.
Headnote:
Acquisition - Land Dispute - Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1992 - Section 36, Section 42 - The court discussed the acquisition of land by the Trust, the possession and encroachment issues, and the previous civil suit filed by the petitioner. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 36 and Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1992, and the interpretation of the acquisition and possession rights under these provisions influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Atma Ram, sought to declare the possession of his land by the Bathinda Improvement Trust as illegal and to restore possession to him. The Trust had acquired the land, and the petitioner had previously filed a civil suit challenging the acquisition, which was dismissed by the civil court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's land was acquired by the Trust, and the possession was taken legally. The court also noted that the petitioner had failed to challenge the acquisition proceedings and had lost the previous civil suit, leading to the dismissal of the present writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the Trust's possession of the petitioner's land, the challenge to the acquisition proceedings, and the impact of the previous civil suit on the present writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to challenge the acquisition proceedings and the dismissal of the previous civil suit barred him from maintaining the present writ petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's loss in the previous civil suit and the lack of merit in the present petition.
A.B. Chaudhari, J.
FACTS
1. Petitioner Atma Ram (since dead) had purchased along with other co-sharers, by name Anita Garg and Pawan Garg, land measuring 4 bigha 10 biswas by sale deed No.847 dated 15.4.1959 out of 63 bighas 9 biswas comprised in Khasra No.1997 situated at village Bathinda, District Bathinda. His share was 1/4th i.e. 1 bigha 2½ biswas falling on western side of Bathinda-Guniani road. Thereafter, Atma Ram purchased 1/4th more share out of the said 4 bigha and 10 biswas by registered sale deed and thus he became owner in possession of total land measuring 2 bigha 5 biswas out of 4 bigha 10 biswas. Anita Garg and Pawan Garg had filed CWP No.2600 of 1994 in this Court putting to challenge notifications for acquisition of the land for the Scheme at Bathinda-Guniani Road. That was decided on 20.10.1989 in favour of the petitioners therein, i.e., Anita Garg and Pawan Garg and on 2.4.2012, Letters Patent Appeal No.467 of 1990 was allowed by this Court setting aside the judgment made by the learned Single Judge dated 20.10.1989. However, the appellate judgment dated 2.4.2012 was set aside by the Apex Court and fresh hearing by this Court was ordered by the Apex Court.
2. Petitioner Atma Ram had filed the present petition in this Court on 28.9.2010 with a prayer to declare possession by Bathinda Improvement Trust (in short the Trust) of 2 bighas 5 biswas land in Khata No.691, khasra No.1997 at Bathinda-Guniani road illegal and consequent restoration of possession to him. According to the petitioner, Atma Ram, in the year 2002 the Trust had tried to take the possession under the garb of the award passed. The petitioner had on erroneous advice of the counsel filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was dismissed on 15.3.2010. Thereafter, from the year 2005, the petitioner had made correspondence with government authorities and there was a direction to make a fact finding report. It is in the light of the above facts, the petitioner sought the relief as earlier stated.
3. The Trust has filed written statement dated 20.7.2011 to this petition. It is stated that the petition filed by Anita Garg (CWP No. 2600 of 1984) was filed on 20.10.1989 against which LPA No.467 of 1990 was filed and it remained pending for final hearing. In para 3 of the written statement, it was stated that the land of the petitioner and other co-sharers measuring 7 bighas 10 biswas was acquired. The Trust had taken the same stand before the Civil Court which finally on evidence dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner Atma Ram on merits.
ARGUMENTS
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition vehemently contended that the Trust had not acquired the subject land belonging to the petitioner and still had made encroachment on the land belonging to the petitioner. The counsel then contended that the maps as well as jamabandi records clearly show that the land purchased by the petitioner was not acquired by the Trust and the land falling in Khata No.668 of khasra No.1997 on eastern side of Bathinda-Guniani road was acquired and the owners had taken compensation for the said area whereas the petitioner's land falls on the western side of the said road. As to the petitioner approaching the Civil Court by filing a civil suit and obtaining judgment against him, learned counsel submitted that the suit was filed under a wrong advice, i.e., Civil Suit No.48 dated 4.4.2002 decided on 15.3.2010 and at any rate according to the counsel though the said judgment and decree was not challenged by the petitioner, it would make no difference as the civil court itself observed that the matter was still pending in the High Court in relation to the acquisition and that is why the petitioner Atma Ram was prompted to file this writ petition though in the year 2010, since the suit was dismissed in the year 2010. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contended that the co-sharers of the petitioner, namely, Anita Garg and Pawan Ga
