Civil Writ Petition No.6632 of 1986 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.6632 of 1986 (O&M) Date of Decision:- December 14, 2011 Mann Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Amandeep Saini, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent No.3. Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab. ... Satish Kumar Mittal, J. C.M. No.14069 of 2011 has been filed by respondent No.3- Gram Panchayat for disposing of the main writ petition in terms of the order dated 22.7.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No.937 of 1987. On this application, notice was issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner for today. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the main writ Civil Writ Petition No.6632 of 1986 (O&M) -2- petition has been taken up for hearing. This writ petition was filed by petitioner Mann Singh for quashing of the order dated 29.8.1986 passed by the Commissioner vide which the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 2.12.1983, whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed in default, was dismissed. In the present case, on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 3/4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 read with Section 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land) Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1976, against four persons, including the petitioner, the Collector vide order dated 15.7.1982 passed the order of their eviction from the land of the Gram Panchayat. All of them filed separate appeals before the Commissioner. All the four appeals were dismissed in default on 2.12.1983. The petitioner and the other three appellants filed the applications for restoration of the appeals before the Commissioner. The same were dismissed on 19.4.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner and other three persons challenged those orders by filing CWP No.3379 of 1985. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner to decide the applications for restoration of the appeals, afresh. After the remand, the Commissioner again dismissed the said applications by the impugned order dated 29.8.1986. All the four persons, including the petitioner, challenged the said order by filing separate writ petitions. Out of the four writ petitions, CWP No.937 of 1987, CWP No.944 of 1987 and CWP No.945 of 1987 were taken up for hearing and were Civil Writ Petition No.6632 of 1986 (O&M) -3- allowed by this Court on July 22, 2010 by passing the following order:- “Even if there was some negligence on the part of the petitioner/counsel in not appearing on the relevant date, yet keeping in view the importance of the stakes involved for the petitioner, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if a direction is given to respondent No.1 to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits. Ordered accordingly. Counsel for respondent No.3 has, however, argued that for all these years, the petitioner has enjoyed the property of the Gram Panchayat without any payment and that there was also no order for securing the mesne profits. In my opinion, the interest of the Gram Panchayat can be adequately safeguarded by putting a condition that the petitioner would give security for mesne profits upto date, which would be a condition precedent and accepted after hearing the respondent-Gram Panchayat. Consequently, the impugned order, dated 29.8.1986 is quashed, and these writ petitions are partly allowed with no order as to costs. Parties through their counsel, are directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 19.8.2010. As the main petitions have sicne been partly allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” The writ petition filed by the petitioner, however, could not be taken up with those writ petitions and remained pending. In that situation, respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat has filed the instant application for disposing of the main writ petition in terms of the order dated July 22, 2010 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. It has been agreed by the counsel for the parties that the instant writ petition is also squarely covered and is required to be decided in the Civil Writ Petition No.6632 of 1986 (O&M) -4- same terms. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of in the same terms. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 14, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) vkg JUDGE