Civil Writ Petition No.4850 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 16, 2009 Gurdev Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab 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: Ms.Naiya Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7 and 8. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The land in dispute is located in village Jagatpura, District Mohali. By virtue of its location, land is obviously very valuable and hence efforts on the part of every one to grab the same. Irony is that even the authorities seem to have facilitated the illegalities, even if they have not connived. Civil Writ Petition No.4850 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : The petitioner claims himself to be the proprietor of village Jagatpura, a village touching Mohali Town. Petitioner states to be in possession of land measuring 4 kanals in khasra No.7//14 since time immemorial through his fore-fathers. On 7.5.2004, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) seeking declaration of the title of the land in dispute in his favour. Respondent No.4 while deciding this application appears to have gone at tangent by directing Panchayat (respondent No.6) to accept a prescribed amount for the land in possession of the petitioner. Panchayat quietly accepts this illegal command and does not file any appeal against this order, which is without jurisdiction. Not only this, on 16.5.2005, Deputy Director (Land Development) (respondent No.3) issues a letter to D.D.P.O. to consider the case of the petitioner regarding sale of Panchayat land. Sarpanch (respondent No.7) with the help of another resident of village installed a tubewell over the land. Petitioner complains that this was done to encroach the land least realising that he himself is also an encroacher. He (the petitioner) filed a civil suit. It is not clearly disclosed in the writ as to for what purpose this civil suit was filed, but from the averments, it can be made out that the said suit was filed to challenge the action of the respondents to install the tubewell. Prayer for injunction was declined and, thus, the suit was rendered infructuous as the tubewell was installed. The petitioner withdrew the civil suit and has filed the present writ petition. The real purpose of this effort would reveal from the contents of writ petition. The petitioner has disclosed that he has Civil Writ Petition No.4850 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : constructed some room over the land and respondent Nos.6 to 8 want to demolish these. As per the petitioner, respondent Nos.6 and 7 are wanting this land to construct rooms. Tussle, thus, is on by all to grab this land. Through this writ petition, the petitioner prays for directions restraining respondent Nos.5 and 6 from making construction over khasra No.7//14 and for implementing the order dated 21.7.2004 passed by respondent No.4. Almost similar relief was claimed in the civil suit which was withdrawn. Considering the nature of relief claimed and as noticed above, the writ petition seems to be clearly misconceived. No mandamus will lie for directing respondent Nos.5 and 6 for restraining them from carrying out construction. Why and on what basis this direction in the form of mandamus is sought has not been laid open in the petition. For issuance of a writ of mandamus, there has to be a legal right and legal duty required to be performed. The present writ petition apparently has been filed by the petitioner when he did not succeed in obtaining the order of injunction by filing a civil suit. Though the petitioner claims to have withdrawn the civil suit, but it was only once he failed in getting injunction order. In fact, the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-Gram Panchayat would disclose the real purpose behind this litigation. The land in dispute is shown as a shamlat deh in the revenue record. The petitioner obviously wants to grab this property. The petitioner failed in his effort to get a title of this land decided in his favour. When this application was under consideration, the petitioner moved another application before the Collector that he was ready to deposit the value of the land at Civil Writ Petition No.4850 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : Collector's rate. This prayer of the petitioner was not opposed by the Gram Panchayat. This petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act was, thus, disposed with the direction to the Gram Panchayat to sell or lease this land to the petitioner. This could not have been but on account of the connivance of the village Panchayat. This fact further revealed during the course of arguments when the counsel for the petitioner candidly stated that large number of persons have constructed rooms like this and they should also be ejected/evicted. Under the circumstances, the Collector should have seen through these efforts on the part of the respondents, villagers and the petitioner to grab the land. He rather appears to have lent a helping hand either wittingly or otherwise. Instead of deciding the title in an application filed by the petitioner,he proceeded to issue totally illegal directions to the Panchayat to sell this land to the petitioner. No one complains and no questions are asked. No one seems to be concerned about saving public property?. It is up for a grab. Even now, the fight between petitioner and respondent-Sarpanch to grab the land has brought this illegality to surface. This fact further came out in the open during the course of the arguments by the counsel for the petitioner, who concentrated more in pointing out that respondent Nos.7, 8 and others have also constructed rooms and these should also be got demolished when she found the court was not agreeing with her line of reasoning. This court cannot be made an executing court for ensuing implementation of orders of Collector etc. The order, which is sought to be implemented, is found to be without jurisdiction. The relief claimed for restraining respondents not to construct is beyond the Civil Writ Petition No.4850 of 2008 (O&M) : 5 : scope of mandamus and cannot be granted. The order passed by the Collector, Rup Nagar directing the Panchayat to sell or lease this land to the petitioner while deciding the application filed by him under Section 11 of the Act is beyond his jurisdiction. There is no justification seen on the part of the Collector to direct Panchayat to sell this land to the petitioner. This order would be beyond his jurisdiction and so need to be interfered with. Direction, therefore, is hereby issued to the Panchayat not to take any action to sell this land to the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Writ petition reveals sorry state of affairs. Various persons are making efforts to grab public land, but the Gram Panchayat and authorities are sitting silent. Various persons appear to have constructed rooms and given the same on rent. What are the officials doing?. Gram Panchayat appears to have abdicated its functions. Even the Collector and his subordinate staff cannot be commended. They must act to save this public property, if it is up for a grab in the manner as revealed from the record. Let the copy of this order be sent to Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, who will take action to ensure that no one is able to usurp the Panchayat land. He would also enquire as to under what circumstances, the Gram Panchayat was directed to sell this land and why no action was taken to challenge the same. He would ensure that no further action in this regard is taken in view of the directions issued in the present writ petition. April 16, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE