Civil Writ Petition No.5418 of 2011 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: March 25 , 2011 Municipal Council, Sirsa .....Petitioner VERSUS 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. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Municipal Council, Sirsa has approached this court for direction to quash the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa in transferring the development works of Auto Market Sirsa to Improvement Trust, Sirsa. This is not the first attempt. The earlier wit petition filed by the Municipal Council to seek similar relief was got dismissed as withdrawn to file fresh by bringing on record the subsequent Civil Writ Petition No.5418 of 2011 : 2 : developments. Without any major change, the present writ petition has been filed praying for the same relief. How a Council would seek quashing of the order issued by Deputy Commissioner for giving responsibility to handle development works of a Market to a body, like Improvement Trust, which primarily had such a function to perform may need some explanation. Instead of responding to this query, the counsel made an attempt to evade this issue to paint the case as if this is being done by way of a scam. When the petitioner's counsel had approached this court on an earlier occasion through CWP No.2547 of 2011, the counsel was asked to show documents to prove ownership of Municipal Committee over the land for entitling the petitioner to develop the Auto Market at said place. Instead of complying with the order, the counsel choose to withdraw the writ petition to file a fresh, which permission was granting thinking that some record in this regard would be produced. The situation has not improved any further. This may convey an impression that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn only to get over this query and the present one has been filed with some cosmetic changes perhaps to avoid answering the query. This query ofcourse was repeated but could not be satisfactorily answered. Except for making reference to some part of resolution, Annexure P-11, where Council was authorised to transfer/sell the plots to Auto Market, no document could be produced to show ownership of the Council over this land. This ground alone would be sufficient to decline interference for invoking writ jurisdiction for the relief claimed. Still the counsel is permitted to make submissions. Civil Writ Petition No.5418 of 2011 : 3 : Concededly, the land in question was acquired by the State Government on 6.8.1984 for the purpose of development of Automobile and Commercial market. The State Government had then laid down criteria for allotment of Automobile market. 703 plots were to be allotted on `no profit no loss` basis. The prospective allottees were to give an undertaking to shift their workshops from the city to the shops allotted to them in the automarket. Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa and Administrator, Municipal Committee, Sirsa were to conduct survey about the persons, who would be eligible for allotment. 279 plots were to be sold in open auction. Municipal Committee had carved out plots. It is stated that the committee had allotted the plots in the year 1997 through draw of lots. Only 630 plots were allotted out of 703 carved out and the remaining could not be allotted due to pendency of civil suits. The Automarket Association then submitted a representation alleging that eligible persons were left out. The committee then took up the matter with Administrator. The demand of plot also increased. Since there were lot of complaints regarding the allotment, an enquiry was conducted by the then S.D.M.Sirsa on direction of Deputy Commissioner and some of the officers were held responsible. It is stated that even State Vigilance Bureau had also held enquiry and a criminal case was also registered which included an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act on 10.3.1997. Reference is also made to a complaint placed before the then High Court Judge, Incharge for administration of Sessions Division, Sirsa and the said complaint was registered as writ petition before this court. Ultimately, this writ petition was withdrawn on 15.10.2010 and thereafter the Civil Writ Petition No.5418 of 2011 : 4 : respondents-Deputy Commissioner and the State had initiated process for taking over the development work of the Automarket by transferring it to Improvement Trust, Sirsa. The petitioners, therefore, have filed this petition to say that the property is owned by the Municipal Council, Sirsa and the Deputy Commissioner would not have any jurisdiction to transfer it for development to Improvement Trust. In this regard, reference is made to resolution, Annexure P-11 through which Municipal Council was authorised for transferring/selling the plots in Automarket. It is in this context that the counsel for the petitioner was required to satisfy this court about the ownership right of the petitioner to carve out plots. The petitioner, however, could point out to some jamabandi which could not be co-related to the land in question in any manner. Concededly, this land was acquired by the State Government and would be property of the State Government. That being the position, it was to be seen if the Deputy Commissioner would have any valid right and jurisdiction to deal with this land by directing Improvement Trust to develop the same. The Municipal Committee could have asked for any interference if it is able to show any right, title over this property. Earlier allotment by Municipal Council was found to be suffering from various infirmities. In any event, it will not sound very proper for two responsible authorities of the Government to fight for development work. The aim is to develop a market. Whether the writ court would be competent to go into all these questions would be an other issue. Earlier, the court had entertained the writ petition ion the year 1997 primarily because the issue was not regarding the right to develop Civil Writ Petition No.5418 of 2011 : 5 : the market but it related to the unfair distribution in allotment of the plots, for which writ was certainly competent and rightly invoked. If the petitioners have any right over this land, the appropriate remedy for them would be to settle it by some amicable manner and writ is not an appropriate forum to go into the disputed questions of fact. The writ, therefore, is dismissed in limine. March 25, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE