C.W.P. No.3325 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3325 of 2008 Decided on : 05-11-2008 Subhash Chand Gupta .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others .... Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. Present:- Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, A.A.G, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.5. HEMANT GUPTA, J The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, claiming the writ of mandamus directing the respondents to protect the right to life of the petitioner by performing the imperative corresponding duty for ensuring the safety of the petitioner and his family. Petitioner has also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 & 2 to protect the possession of the petitioner and ensure that he may not be forcibly dispossessed from his land by respondent No.5 and by officials of Police Station, Jagadhri. The petitioner also prays for directing the respondents to create peaceful atmosphere so that the petitioner can cultivate at least his 30 acres ancestral land freely without any fear and apprehension. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that he is an agriculturist C.W.P. No.3325 of 2008 -2- owing 30 acres ancestral land in village Jarauda, Tehsil Jagadhari. The petitioner claims to have tenancy rights of 1½ acres of land adjacent to his ancestral land. As per the petitioner, the Revenue record speaks in favour of the tenancy right of the petitioner over the land measuring tenancy rights of 1½ acres of land, which was earlier in favour of Mawasi Ram, respondent No.5. The petitioner claims to have purchased tenancy rights from respondent No.5 and as a proof of such purchase, the petitioner relies upon an affidavit and written statement dated 13.10.01, earlier filed by respondent No.5. It has been pointed out that a false and frivolous case has been lodged in which the petitioner has been implicated. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the dispute is in respect of 1½ acre of land, but the petitioner is not permitted to cultivate the land owned by him in the village and thus, the petitioner has sought the reliefs as mentioned earlier. The petitioner has not specifically disclosed in the writ petition that he has filed Civil Suit for injunction in respect of 1½ acre of land allegedly purchased by him from respondent No.5. It is only in replication, the petitioner attached the copies of the orders passed by the Courts on an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition to the following effect:- “That the current state affair reveals is that the rule of law is just a promise of unreality and a teasing illusion where time and again the Hon'ble Court have had observed that the rule of law and due process of law is the fundamental right of every citizen of the petitioner. The petitioner is still facing grave apprehension just because of a communal hatred and cannot earn his bread and butter. That as far as the disputed area is concerned C.W.P. No.3325 of 2008 -3- the case is lying pending in the court and the decision and the verdict will be respected by the petitioner, but at least the petitioner deserves the adequate opportunity to cultivate the land owned by him.” The writ petition was filed on 28.02.2008, whereas the Civil Suit for injunction was filed on 01.01.2008. The averments made in para 22 are not clearly indicative of the filing of suit for injunction. We find that the facts disclosed in the writ petition do not warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the Civil Suit, the petitioner has claimed actual and physical possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 12 kanal 18 marlas. The injunction application has been allowed by the learned Trial Court and the same has been affirmed in an Appeal and Revision. A perusal of the appellate order shows that Sh. Chandan Ram, father of respondent No.5 was tenant of the suit land and after his death, respondent No.5 has entered in possession of the suit land as a tenant. The petitioner alleges that the defendant has surrendered the possession of the suit land in his favour in the year 1995. On the basis of such assertion, the Appellate Court has affirmed the order of the injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that even though the Civil Court has granted injunction in respect of 12 kanal 18 marlas, the Police Authorities are adjudicating upon the question of possession over the suit land which is evident from the affidavit of ASI, Suresh Kumar, filed on 20.08.2008 in the contempt proceedings. It is also pointed out that the suit pertains to 12 kanal 18 marlas of land, whereas the dispute in the present writ petition is in respect of the petitioner's life and property measuring 30 acres and that such right cannot be interfered by the C.W.P. No.3325 of 2008 -4- respondents. A perusal of the pleadings in the present writ petition would show that there is serious dispute between the parties regarding the possession of land measuring 12 kanal 18 marlas. There is already an ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. If there is any threat of dispossession to the plaintiff in respect of the said area, the plaintiff has a right to invoke an appropriate proceedings for the implementation of the said order. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further stated that the said respondent is not disputing the title of the plaintiff in respect of 30 acres of land, but actually the petitioner under the grab of the said possession of 30 acres of land, wants to enter into possession of 1½ acre of land which is actually in possession of respondent No.5. The dispute regarding the possession is still pending before the Civil Court in respect of land measuring 12 kanal 18 marlas, therefore, we retrain ourselves from commenting on the matter. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek his remedy in respect of such injunction. But under the garb of injunction, he cannot be permitted to take possession of the land if respondent No.5 is in actual and physical possession. Consequently, we do not find that any further directions are required to be issued in the present writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 5th November 2008. (Nawab Singh) Monika Judge