C.W.P.No. 11288 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 11288 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.4.2011 Yuvraj Ranjit Singh ........Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate, for Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for Mr. O.S.Batalavi, Advocate for UOI-respondent No.1 Ms. Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab RANJAN GOGOI, CJ. : (Oral) The petitioner who is a registered body has instituted this PIL drawing the attention of the court to the incidents of usurpation of property of the original owners in Ferozepur District by persons who are claimed to be indulging in anti-national and terrorists activities. A reading of the writ petition would go to show that some alleged victims had been identified and named in the writ petition i.e. Gurdeep Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Bagicha Singh, Fauja Singh and Avtar Singh. The alleged anti-social persons who according to the petitioner, had usurped such property have been impleaded as respondents No.6 and 7 in the writ petition. The Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur has filed a detailed reply dated 7.1.2011 in the case. We have perused the same. The alleged incident in respect of Fauja Singh has been explained in paragraph 8 of the reply. In C.W.P.No. 11288 of 2010 2 the preliminary submission made by the Deputy Commissioner it has been mentioned that the revenue records have been corrected showing the respondent No.6 Iqbal Singh to be in possession of the land. In fact the said preliminary submission would indicate that the necessary corrections were made after due notice to the effected parties. In so far as Fauja Singh is concerned it appears that the possession of the lands by Bhajan Singh and Hansa Singh (not impleaded) was also in accordance with the provisions of the relevant law in this regard. The above apart, all the orders of transfer of mutation passed by the Revenue Authorities are appealable orders and there is a statutory remedy available to the aggrieved persons under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. In such circumstances, we are of the view that this PIL ought not to be entertained any further and no adjudication of the rights to possession under the Revenue Law should be made by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rather, the aggrieved persons should be left to exhaust their statutory remedies under the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 or any other law as may be in force. PIL shall stand disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE April 6, 2011 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____ C.W.P.No. 11288 of 2010 3