COCP No. 929 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 929 of 1995 Date of Decision : July 19, 2011 Market Committee Panipat ...... Petitioner Versus Narender Singh and another ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Brief facts of the present case are that respondents field a CWP No.11079 of 1988 in this Court challenging the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Vide order dated 29.3.1989 Division Bench of this Court admitted the writ petition and ordered status quo be maintained. The allegation of the petition Market Committee is that respondents were unauthorisedly tried to fill the land with earth which belongs to the Committee and in this regards a FIR was also registered against the respondents. After that the respondents gave an undertaking that no construction will be made on the disputed land till the decision of the COCP No. 929 of 1995 2 case in this Court, but after the undertaking the respondents continuing laying brick flooring on the disputed land. Both the respondents in their separate reply have stated as under:- “3. That para 3 of the petition is wrong and is denied. The answering-respondent and his brother Shri Ashok Kumar filled earth in the land which had been purchased by them by means of registered Sale Deed dated 15th December, 1975 and not in the land of the Market Committee. The land which had been purchased by the answering respondent alongwith his brother on 15th December, 1975 is adjacent to the boundary wall of the residential kothi of the answering- respondent and there was a deep pit in the land purchased by the answering- respondent and his brother. Due to stagnation of water which gets accumulated there on account of depression, the boundary wall of the residential kothi of the answering-respondent fell down as the foundations of the boundary wall were completely damaged on account of the stagnation of water and in order to safeguard the boundary wall, the answering-respondent and his brother got the land filled up with earth. This filling was essential because the depth of the adjoining land was nearly 6 to 7 feet which endangered the life and limb of the members of the family of the answering-respondent and the cattles maintained by them. On one occasion, a buffalo of the answering-respondent had fallen down into that pit last year and broke one of its leg. The filling was started after the incident of the buffalo falling into the pit had occurred. A false complaint was made by the COCP No. 929 of 1995 3 Executive Officer of the Market committee on account of the enmity with the answering-respondent due to the filing of the writ petition challenging the acquisition of the land (CWP No.11079 of 1988). It is incorrect that any FIR was recorded against the answering-respondent. The letter dated 12th March, 1995, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the Contempt Petition is not denied. 5. That para 5 of the petition is wrong and is denied. Apart from filling the earth in the land in dispute in order to save the boundary wall of their house, the answering-respondent and his brother have not raised any construction. It is incorrect that any bath room has been constructed on the land in dispute. Whatever constructions had already been made, as mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition (CWP No.11079 of 1988) no further constructions have been raised in the land in dispute. 6. That para 6 of the petition is wrong and is denied. The answering-respondent or his brother have not violated the order of status-quo made by this Hon’ble Court. A false and frivolous petition for contempt has been made by the Executive Officer of the Market Committee after he failed to secure prosecution of the answering-respondent and his brother by the police. The contempt petition is false and frivolous and deserves to be dismissed with costs.” Having perused the reply and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that by filling the plot in question with sand during the pendency of writ petition, does not amount to change of the nature of the property in dispute. Even otherwise, COCP No. 929 of 1995 4 respondents have specifically stated in their reply that they have not raised any permanent construction over the property sought to be acquired. In view of this notices issued to the respondents stand discharged. Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that respondents shall not raise any construction without permission from the Bench hearing the writ petition challenging notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. (Alok Singh) Judge July 19, 2011 Anand