Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 01, 2011 Sunder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Municipal Committee. Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Sahi, Advocate for respondent No. 4. ****** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner and the respondents in these writ petitions have exposed enough chinks in the armory of each other to reveal how the largesse were being distributed on account of political Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 2 }: patronage. At stake was the public property belonging to Municipal Committee, Karnal. The accusing finger is towards the then Local Bodies Minister, Dr.Mangal Sain of Bhartiya Janta Party and Seth Lachhman Dass Bajaj of the same party. They have been impleaded as respondents by name to answer the allegations of malafides alleged against them. One of them has filed response. Dr.Mangal Sain, however, has chosen to remain silent. This is a case where the Municipal Committee and the private individual involved have acted in violation of the interim order passed by this Court. That could have been possibly done due to some influence of high up. This Court had protected the public property from sale and despite that one of the respondents has been able to construct thereon and has continued to enjoy the fruits of such construction till now. It is now stated to be a prime property. In countless cases, Courts of law have passed orders to protect the public properties from being usurped and it was done in this case. Still, an individual with apparent connivance of Municipal Committee Staff has violated the orders passed by this Court. It is a matter of serious concern and would call for drastic action to restore the majesty of law. If a party can arrogate himself to defy the orders passed by a Court of law, then he has to be apprised that law and Courts of law are not helpless and can handle and deal with such violators of law adequately. A few facts to get grasp of the defiance revealed in this case. Two out of these three writ petitions are filed by same petitioner, making somewhat contradictory plea to claim some right in Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 3 }: his favour. Sunder Singh is the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.7597 of 1989 and co-petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.9350 of 1989. He has not only challenged the sale of a prime plot located on old G.T.Road in favour of respondent, Jai Dayal (now dead) alleging that this was being done to distribute largesse in his favour by the then Minister, at the same time, he has prayed for sale of the same plot to him at the reserved price. When this petitioner learnt of another move made by yet another person, named, Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla (now deceased) to stake a claim for buying this plot, he filed second writ petition to impugn the same. Late Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla has filed Civil Writ Petition No.9807 of 1991 to pray for sale of a plot in his favour which is now being prosecuted by his legal heirs to press this claim. Late Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla and party have claimed to be lessee and, thus, are invoking their right to purchase this plot. The different interest pursued by the petitioner and the respondents to advance claims for purchasing this property is the reason that they have raised pleas to defeat or contradict each other and in a way have exposed the hollowness of the legal claim made by each one of them. The Municipal Committee, Karnal and its functionaries have failed to protect its property and rather are seen to have connived with one or the other, and are clearly responsible for flouting and violating the interim order passed by this Court. They all must account for these arbitrary illegalities on their respective parts. Since these three writ petitions relate to common cause, so are being disposed of by this common order. The facts in brief, as taken from Civil Writ Petition Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 4 }: No.7597 of 1989, would show that petitioner, Sundar Singh, had filed this writ petition to challenge the action of respondent-Municipal Committee to sell a piece of land situated on old G.T.Road, Karnal to respondent No.4, Jai Dayal, who after his death during the pendency of petition, is being represented by his L.Rs. As stated in the petition, there is an open space measuring 24 feet x 25 feet lying between the house of the petitioner and the old G.T.Road, Karnal, towards east side. The petitioner claims that doors and windows of his house open towards this open space. As per the petitioner, this open space in front of the house measures 66 yards. Relying upon Government instructions dated 9.10.1987, the petitioner has claimed his right to purchase this plot, which enjoins his house, for which necessary permission can be granted by Deputy Commissioner, if Municipal committee resolves to sell the plot. As per the petitioner, the Municipal Committee, vide its resolution No.6 dated 30.3.1988, had resolved to sell the vacant land lying between the houses and the G.T.Road of 27 house owners and had sent this resolution for approval of the Deputy Commissioner. As per the petitioner, even prior to that, the Municipal committee had resolved to sell the land to 73 and 35 house owners at the reserved price and the Deputy Commissioner had granted approval for selling these pieces of open space land to these owners. In Resolution No.6, name of one Bhim Singh was mentioned at Sr.No.16 as authorised one to purchase the open space. His house was adjoining the house of the petitioner towards southern side. His name was Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 5 }: deleted from the resolution and it was substituted by adding the name of Late Jai Dayal (respondent No.4). The petitioner immediately represented against this action to the Deputy Commissioner, requesting him to cancel the name of Late Jai Dayal from the resolution. The Deputy Commissioner instead accorded approval of sale in favour of Late Jai Dayal at the reserved price of Rs.300/- per square yard. It is stated that Late Jai Dayal did not own any house or plot near to this open space but still was being favoured by adding his name in the resolution instead of Bhim Singh, who had a house in the vicinity. The petitioner immediately filed an appeal under Section 252/253 of the Haryana Municipal Act against the order before respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner and Secretary, Local Self Government. Respondent No.1 vide his order dated 1.3.1989 cancelled resolution No.6 so far as name of Late Jai Dayal was concerned and further directed that open space be kept as a green belt or it should be sold by open auction . This detailed fair order was arbitrarily and without justification interfered with by the then Minister of Local Bodies, Dr.Mangal Sain and the then Deputy Chief Minister as well. The petitioner was not aware of this patronage extended to respondent No.4. It is this action, which is being termed as favour and distribution of largess by the then Minister. This order seemingly suggest something more than mere interference on the part of Minister. The Minister directed that the order of Secretary dated 1.3.1989 is withdrawn with further direction that the registry be executed in favour of the applicant (Jai Dayal) Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 6 }: forthwith. Strangely, the matter had not reached the Minister in any appropriate legal manner or proceedings but was taken to him through a representation filed by respondent No.4 and this `Farmaneshahi' was endorsed on the representation without any perceivable justification. The order reads:- “Under the new policy of the Government, the order of the Secretary, Local Govt. dated 1.3.1989 are hereby reversed/withdrawn. Registry in favour of the applicant be got executed forthwith. Sd/-Dy.C.M. (LG) 17.5.1989” Apparently, this order was passed without even looking at the policy, which is referred to in the order. The Minister did not make any attempt to acquaint himself whether the applicant-respondent No.4, who had directly approached him by way of representation against the legal order passed by Secretary in exercise of his jurisdiction, was having any house near to the open space for being entitled to ask for purchasing the same, as per the policy framed by the State. The specific allegation of malafides are made in the petition, which have remained unrebutted, as the then Minister impleaded in person, has not chosen to file any response. The petitioner being unaware of this order at that stage was pursuing his application for transfer of this land in his favour at the reserved price. He was to learn that the Deputy Commissioner has already given approval for selling the land to respondent No.4 vide order dated 19.12.1988. Later, the petitioner was to learn about the order passed by the Minister concerned. He accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn these orders, alleging that respondent No.4 Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 7 }: has a close association with the Minister (respondent No.5). The petitioner accordingly challenged the order passed by Minister, Annexure P-6, besides pleading that he had a preferential right to purchase this plot on the market value to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner. This Court admitted the writ petition on 2.6.1989 and stayed the operation of Annexure P-6 and the sale of the property by public auction till further orders. (Emphasis added) Soon thereafter, petitioner, Sunder Singh alongwith two other persons, namely, Surinder Singh and Smt.Raj Rani, filed Civil Writ Petition No.9350 of 1989 for allotting this open space to the petitioners and to cancel the lease of this part of land stated to be in favour of respondent No.4 i.e. Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla. In this writ petition also, Dr.Mangal Sain was impleaded in person besides Seth Lachhman Dass Bajaj the then President of Municipal Committee Karnal as respondent Nos.5 and 6 respectively, against whom the malafides are alleged. As per the allegation, Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla, is stated to be a strong supporter of Bhartiya Janta Party and close associate of respondent Nos.5 and 6. It is stated that respondent No.6 had then contested the election on the ticket of Bhartiya Janta Party and was elected M.L.A from Karnal constituency. He had also been the President of Municipal Committee, Karnal. Dr.Mangal Sain (respondent No.5) and Seth Lachhman Dass (respondent No.6) were allegedly helping respondent No.4 in getting lease of this piece of land from 17.10.1978 onwards when Sh.Ram Lal Wadhwa, another B.J.P. leader was Minister of Local Self Government, Haryana. Respondent No.4 had moved an application on 7.5.1979 for grant of Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 8 }: lease of the land for 10 years and he was able to get lease registered in his favour for a period of 10 years in violation of the norms. Ram Lal Wadhwa was the then Minister Incharge. Respondent No.4 had never deposited any lease money for over 8 years and had statedly not used the land for any purpose. The petitioners claim that their predecessors used this for ingress and outgress to their houses and had come to learn afterwards that the same was on lease with Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla, respondent No.4. The petitioners would refer to a letter of Chief Executive Officer sent to respondent No.1 with a recommendation that the lease be cancelled, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-6. Instead, respondent No.4 used his contacts to get an order for recovery of lease money for three years with 10% interest. 15 Municipal Commissioners had then written to the President, Municipal Committee, for taking action to cancel the lease in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioners also met the Municipal Commissioner to press for their claim, being the house owners adjoining this piece of land. The matter was then discussed by the Municipal Committee on a proper agenda but the President in order to help respondent No.4, had adjourned the meeting in an illegal and malafide manner. The petitioners would point out that earlier Dr.Mangal Sain (respondent No.5) had ordered the sale of land to Late Jai Dayal, an activist of the party. Mention is then made to the challenge by one of the petitioners raised against this allotment, when operation of the allotment and sale was stayed. The petitioners have accordingly challenged the action of the official respondents in accepting the lease money for a period of 8 years, Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 9 }: which was in violation of all norms. The petitioners accordingly filed this writ petition to challenge the action of the official respondents in regularising the lease in favour of respondent No.4, besides pleading for allotment of the same in their favour. THIRD WRIT PETITION NO.9807 OF 1991 Pushpa Rani widow of Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla has approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No.9807 of 1991, claiming right to purchase this plot and for a direction for selling the leased property to her, besides praying that lease in her favour be not cancelled and rather be renewed. In this writ petition, the plea of the petitioner is that her husband, Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla had applied for lease of the plot on 7.5.1979 for 10 years. The Secretary had responded by saying that lease could not be given for more than one year. The husband of the petitioner then made an application for grant of lease for a period of one year and accordingly lease was made in favour of Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla at the rate of Rs.360/- per year and the possession of the plot was also given to him on 24.7.1979. It is then averred that the Committee in the meantime had agreed to execute the lease deed for a period of 10 years and such lease was executed on 3.8.1979 and was registered on 29.7.1981 for a period of 10 years from 1.8.1981 to 31.7.1991. It is claimed that since that date, the plot has been in the possession of the petitioner, earlier being with her deceased husband, Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla. The lease money had also been enhanced and fixed at Rs.2000/- per Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 10 }: year. As per the lease deed, the petitioner was entitled to carry out construction and so the site plan as submitted by Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla was sanctioned by the Committee on 4.9.1981. It was renewed on 2.3.1990 till 1.4.1992. It is, thus, claimed that the possession of the plot had remained with the petitioner. It is stated that the same is located adjacent to the Clinic run by Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla and now two sons of the petitioner are registered medical practitioners. The petitioner in this case would challenge the rights of Sunder Singh to purchase this plot by saying that the same is surrounded by Nala from three sides and it is not a Fasil land. It is accordingly pleaded that no one except the petitioner can make a claim for purchase of this plot, as per the policy. The petitioner would also make reference to the order passed by Minister, Local Self Government on 3.4.1981, who has decided that the land in question be given to Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla as it will be only useful for him. Copy of the order passed by the Minister has been annexed with the petition. It appears that the petitioner had not deposited the lease money and accordingly he had made application on 4.6.1981 for extension of lease and for deposit of amount. The petitioner has also moved an application for purchase of this plot according to the Government policy. Reference is made to various applications moved by the petitioner to the Municipal Committee. As per the petitioner, one Gian Shah had also filed a civil suit against the Committee and the lease money had not been accepted by Municipal Committee for three years from 1982 to 1985 Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 11 }: because of pendency of this civil suit. Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla, however, had deposited lease money on 30.3.1986 with interest @ 10%. The petitioner would aver that she was not allowed to use this land for 3 years from 1982 to 1985 and would claim that the right to use this land even after 1.8.1991 on payment of lease money. The petitioner would rely upon instructions dated 9.3.1989 issued by the Government superseding the earlier instructions dated 9.10.1987, as per which, the case of the petitioner was fully covered for getting the land on sale in her favour. The petitioner has also contested the right of Jai Dayal, respondent in connected writ petition, by pointing out that the plot of land on lease with the petitioner is a part of bigger plot measuring 1014 sq.ft., out of which 416 Sq.ft. had been sold to Late Jai Dayal, who was in possession of this portion on `Taibajari' only. The petitioner has pointed out that Jai Dayal has deposited the entire amount and the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee in his favour was approved by the Deputy Commissioner. The remaining portion of the bigger plot was on lease with Dr.Bodh Raj and was thereafter with the petitioner at the time of filing of this writ petition. It is claimed that the case of the petitioner, thus, is on higher pedestal for right to purchase this plot and, thus, the same ought to be sold to her. The Committee, on the other hand, had not taken any action on the application made by late Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla for purchasing this plot in accordance with the policy, against which the petitioner has made a representation. Complaining that some Municipal Commissioners are interested in grabbing this land in dispute in Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 12 }: collusion with certain persons and has, thus, moved the Committee and the High Court for cancellation of lease. The petitioner, thus, would allege malafide on the part of Members of the Municipal Committee for not taking any action on her application for sale of this plot in her favour. The petitioner has, thus, approached this Court with a prayer that direction be issued to the respondents to sell the land to the petitioner in accordance with the Government policy dated 28.3.1989. STAND OF RESPONDENT-MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE IN THESE PETITIONS The right of petitioner, Sunder Singh, to purchase this piece of land is contested by the respondent-Municipal Committee, as well as respondent No.4 and by Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.3), in their replies filed in Civil Writ Petition No.7597 of 1989. Municipal Committee and Deputy Commissioner have clearly stated that representation given by the petitioner was ordered to be filed. The Deputy Commissioner has not denied the fact that Dr.Mangal Sain was the Minister of Local Bodies and after passing of the appellate order by the Secretary, respondent No.4 had submitted a representation to the Minister and the impugned order was passed thereon. Respondent No.4 (Late Jai Dayal) in his reply has made allegation against the petitioner for suppressing the material facts and for attempting to over-reach the Court. As per this reply, there is a Nala between the house of the petitioner, which has not been deliberately shown in the site plan annexed. The opening of the windows and the doors have also wrongly been shown in the site Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 13 }: plan submitted by the petitioner. To point out the correct factual position, reference is made to sale deed dated 4.5.1988 in favour of the petitioner by one Laxmi Devi, widow of Sh.Jassa Ram. It is also pointed out that the Committee in resolution No.6 dated 30.3.1988 had decided to sell the land in dispute to respondent No.4 only when Laxmi Devi, the then owner of the house (later bought by the petitioner) had not asserted her rights, though she was given an option for purchasing the same. It is stated that the petitioner had purchased this house from Laxmi Devi subsequently on 4.5.1988 and, thus, has no right or locus to purchase this plot, the same option having not been exercised by the then owner of the house. As per respondent No.4, there is no open space between the house of the petitioner and the G.T.Road on the east side. There is a Nala on the backside of the petitioner's house and in between the open space. The doors and windows of the house of the petitioner opens on the opposite side of the open space and there is no path or approach to the house of the petitioner from the G.T.Road. Having so mentioned and disputing the right of the petitioner, respondent No.4 has not come forward to show his right and entitlement to purchase this property and has only referred to the fact that he has deposited the full and final price of the open space. Respondent No.4 would rely upon the impugned order passed in his favour by the Minister, which according to him, was as per the existing instructions. This stand would not only show a gapping hole in the right of respondent No.4 and that of the petitioner but would indicate that the order passed by the Minister apparently was without Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 14 }: considering the relevant factors or the policy in question. This would give an indication of favours being bestowed to respondent No.4 and the allegations as made against respondent No.5 are found justified to a large extent. This aspect would receive further confirmation from subsequent developments, as can be noticed, and which have been brought on record by none other than respondent No.4. Once this Court passed an interim order directing stay of the order, Annexure P-6, passed by the Minister and for sale of the land till further orders, respondent No.4 has been able to carry out construction after getting the building plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. It can, thus, be noticed that political patronage has led to relegating the interest of Municipal Committee to the background and each one is over-reaching the other to show favour to their favoured ones. It is alarming to notice that despite corrective action and measures taken by this Court to stay the auction and sale, the interested persons on account of patronage were not only able to get the plan sanctioned upon approval by Municipal Committee but have managed to construct on the plot. Counsel appearing for petitioner, Pushpa Rani, however, stated that the plot over which she has made a claim is lying vacant and no construction has been carried out. Late Jai Dayal is the one who had arrogated himself to carry out construction in violation of the interim direction issued by this Court. How and under what circumstances the Municipal Committee and its officials could sanction the building plans and allow this construction to come about, Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 15 }: is beyond comprehension and imagination. The only explanation that would emerge is that it was the connivance of the officials of the Municipal Committee to allow this to happen. Unfortunate would it be to notice that no one has ever taken any corrective measure to rectify the situation. The present Executive Officer or all those who occupied the post during the intervening periods have no explanation to offer. Even if