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

2024 Supreme(P&H) 795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Parkash Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.21809 of 2015
Decided On : 06-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate; For the Petitioners
For the Respondent:Mr. Arun William, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. D.S. Sidhu for Mr. Alok Jain, Advocates for Respondents No.3 to 5

Writ jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving disputed questions of fact; such matters should be addressed in Civil Court.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Municipal Act - Section 56 - Petition challenging resolution and sale of land reserved for non-proprietors - Petitioners claim illegal sale of land reserved for them by Municipal Council - Respondents assert ownership and lawful sale for public utility - Court finds no title dispute, but questions of fact require resolution by Civil Court. (Paras 2, 4)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of writ jurisdiction limited to legal issues, not factual disputes - Petitioners advised to seek alternative remedies in Civil Court. (Paras 4, 5)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the resolution No.13 dated 12.03.2012 issued by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur District Mohali wherein land measuring 2000 sq. Yards in village Baltana has been sold to respondent No.3 and consequently for setting aside the sale effected dated 29.09.2015, wherein in furtherance of the resolution dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure P-4) the land reserved for the non-proprietors (petitioners) has been sold.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the non-proprietors inhabitants in village Baltana, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali. He has submitted that consolidation in the village had taken place on 07.12.1985 and in the partition proceedings, land comprised in Khasra No.973, 974, 975 and 978 were reserved for non-proprietors as Abadi plots were situated in the said Khasra numbers. He has submitted that Jamabandi for the year 2012-13 would show that these Khasra numbers are gair mumkin/abadi plots inhabited by the non-proprietors/scheduled castes. It is submitted that vide notification dated 04.08.2000, village Baltana was declared as a transitional area and consequently a Nagar Panchayat was constituted in place of Gram Panchayat and thereafter, in the year 2006 the Nagar Panchayat was declared as Municipal Council, Zirakpur. He has submitted that the petitioners have been living in the said area for many generations and almost 40 to 50 houses were situated in the aforesaid Khasra numbers. It is submitted that Municipal Council, Zirakpur passed a resolution dated 12.03.2012, wherein, it was resolved that land measuring 2000 sq. yards in village Baltana and 5000 sq. yards Dialpura would be provided to respondent No.3 for setting up of Sub Station in Baltana. He submits that sale deed was got executed by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur in favour of respondent No.3 for the land which was reserved for the petitioners at the time of consolidation. It is submitted that the respondents are trying to take possession of the said land forcibly and some houses belonging to the non-proprietors were also demolished. It is submitted that resolution dated 12.03.2012 and registered sale deed dated 29.09.2015 were executed illegally as the same are without any jurisdiction and against the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that after merger of village in Municipal Council, Zirakpur, Shamlat land of the village had not vested in the Municipal Council, Zirakpur. He submits that in view of the provisions of Section 56 of the Punjab Municipal Act, Municipal Council had no power whatsoever to transfer the same in favour of respondent No.3. He submits that the land reserved for the petitioners/non-proprietors, which was initially Shamlat land, does not vest in the Municipal Council and hence, Municipal Council had no right to alienate them. It is submitted that the petitioners were not granted any opportunity before taking any decision. He further submits that the necessary sanction from the State Government was also not obtained by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur. He submits that in these circumstances, the resolution dated 12.03.2012 and the sale deed dated 29.09.2015, being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 i.e. Municipal Council, Zirakpur has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and the present petition has been filed with a clandestine motive. He submits that the land falling in Khasra No.978 was reserved as Gair Mumkin during consolidation. He submits that the petitioners are residing in Khasra No.978 for last many years. He submits that total area of Khasra No.978 is 4750 sq. yards approximately and out of this area, the petitioners constructed their houses in

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