IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI, JJ.
Harnek Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 22863 of 2021
Decided On : 02-06-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner requests mandamus for pond inquiry. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's argument based on supreme court judgment. (Para 2) |
| 3. summary of notice and order issued by the court. (Para 3) |
| 4. official respondents provide counter-reply with village details. (Para 4) |
| 5. nri offers alternative pond location due to health hazards. (Para 5) |
| 6. village decides to relocate pond with community support. (Para 6) |
| 7. fundamental changes due to nri donation for public good. (Para 7) |
| 8. community hall constructed on former pond area. (Para 8) |
| 9. petitioner lacks standing and omitted important facts. (Para 9) |
| 10. court further examines relocations despite concerns. (Para 10) |
| 11. actions taken were for communal benefit, not malice. (Para 11) |
| 12. supreme court's directives on gram sabha land usage. (Para 12) |
| 13. court denies demolition, issues directions for new pond. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the issuance of a mandamus upon the official respondent(s) concerned, to consider the grievance of the petitioner, as carried in the representation dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure P-5), and, also to conduct an inquiry in terms of the directions, as carried in Annexure P-6, issued by the respondent No.2, on the premise that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned (respondent No.9), has constructed a community hall over the disputed pond (Chappar) in Village Badial by filling it with sand, which exists for the last more than 50 years and was used for common purposes by the inhabitants of the village concerned.
2. By placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled "Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others", 2011(1) ICC 742, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the factual matrix of the present case causes breach of the directions, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case (supra), therefore, he has sought the indulgence of this Court, to take stern action against the private respondent No.9 and has also sought the restoration of the disputed pond to its original condition.
3. This Court, while issuing notice of motion in the present case, had passed the hereinafter extracted order:-
"The petitioner has approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner as highlighted in the representation dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure P-5), whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur was called upon to look into the matter with regard to the encroachment on the Pond (Chappar) of village Badial as the pond has been filled in and construction is being carried out on the same. It has been asserted that in the revenue record as well as the other known facts for more than 50 years, the pond was in existence which has been filled in for carrying out illegal constructions. This act on the part of the Gram Panchayat itself, amounts to encroachment on the pond i.e. Khasra No.438, in violation of the provisions of the statute as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011 decided on 28.01.2011' and as on to the judgment of this Court in 'CWP-9885-2020 titled as Terjinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others' decided on 15.07.2020 (Annexure P-3). It has further been asserted that not only this, even the Director Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab had vide communication dated 08.09.2021 addressed to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-6) and vide letter dated 15.09.2021 sent by the Director Land Records, Punjab (Annexure P-7) to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur had called upon these authorities to inquire into the allegations that has been made by the petitioner with regard to filling up of the pond and making construction therein but despite the same, no action has been taken. Petitioner has also approached the Deputy C
Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011, decided on 28.01.2011
AI
Construction on land designated as pond is prohibited by law, and unchallenged resolutions by local authorities supersede prior approvals.
Community interest prevails over individual concerns in public projects, and unsubstantiated objections do not merit judicial intervention.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the State to hold and manage communal properties, such as water bodies, for the benefit of the community. The judgment also emphasizes ....
The NGT affirmed that local authorities must enforce environmental laws to protect water bodies from illegal filling and dumping, emphasizing restoration and compliance responsibilities.
Boundary walls around private ponds in residential areas need not be demolished if integrated with surrounding houses; restoration of water bodies upheld with directions for maintenance and preventio....
The decision emphasizes legal duties to protect public water bodies from illegal filling and encroachment, highlighting compliance with environmental regulations.
The court established the necessity for ecological protection of water bodies, enforcing compliance with environmental regulations while considering community impacts.
Court directs authorities to remove vegetation from public pond and restore access within stipulated time frame.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.