CWP No. 1641 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 17, 2009 (i) CWP No. 1641 of 2008. Yashwant Singh Sood ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Present: Shri Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Shri APS Mann, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Shri Manmohan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 to 8. Shri A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Shri Aashish Chopra, Advocate, for respondents No. 9 to 11. (ii) CWP No. 3547 of 2007. Sukhdev Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Present: Shri A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Shri Aashish Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Additional AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No. 1641 of 2008 (2) HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1641 of 2008 and 3547 of 2007. CWP No. 1641 of 2008 has been filed in public interest, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 4 to demolish the illegal construction raised by respondent No.9-Sukhdev Singh on a public property. CWP No. 3547 of 2007 has been filed by Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter called as `occupant'), challenging an order dated 29.11.2006, passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab, declining the building plan, submitted by Sukhdev Singh on the said area. In Civil Writ Petition No. 1641 of 2008, it is averred by the petitioner that he is owner of 1/3rd share in 8 biswas of land situated at G.T. Road, Khanna, and adjacent to the said land of the petitioner, there is an open land owned by the Municipal Council, Khanna. It is averred that one Ram Baksh, who was an employee of the Municipal Council, started living in a Jhuggi constructed on the Municipal land. After his death, his son Chet Ram, came in possession of the said Jhuggi. After the death of Chet Ram, his son Bant Ram, occupied the Municipal land. The said Bant Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 31.3.1981. A copy of the judgment, has been appended as Annexure P.3. A perusal of the said judgment shows that Bant Ram sought injunction, by raising a plea that he is owner of the said land by virtue of an adverse possession. An issue to that effect was framed, but on an application filed by the plaintiff, Issue Nos. 1 to 6 were deleted. The suit was decreed on the basis of a finding recorded on Issue No. 7, which is to the effect that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, therefore, he is entitled to injunction against CWP No. 1641 of 2008 (3) the Municipal Council from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in dispute illegally and without adopting due process laid down by law. Subsequently, the Municipal Council, filed a petition under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act, 1973, for eviction of Bant Ram, in terms of the liberty granted by the Civil Court, but the same was dismissed on 2.3.1989. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- “In view of the above, I am inclined to accept the arguments brought forward by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent has a right to proprietorship of the disputed plot. Unless the question of title is decided by a competent court proceedings under the P.P. Act should not be carried out. I, therefore, drop the proceedings accordingly. This does not bar the Municipal Committee to file a fresh application under the P.P. Act after getting the question of title settled in its favour from a competent Court.” The appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed on 14.11.1995. It is averred that the occupant is brother of wife of Lakhbir Singh, an Ex Councillor of the Municipal Council, Khanna. The said occupant purchased the land in occupation of Bant Singh, vide sale deed dated 22.11.2000. It is also pointed out that the building plan submitted by the occupant to raise construction on the said area, was declined by the Municipal Council, but the appeal against the said order was accepted by the Collector on 23.11.2004. The order of the Collector, has since been set CWP No. 1641 of 2008 (4) aside in the revision by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, on 29.11.2006. As mentioned above, the said order is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed by the occupant. On 11.2.2008, this Court directed that no construction be raised at the impugned place. Since the construction was not stopped, even though the said order was passed, this Court initiated contempt proceedings, which came to be disposed of on 19.8.2008 (COCP No.206 of 2008), on the basis of the statement given by the official-respondents that the construction has been stopped. In a written statement filed on behalf of the occupant and respondents No. 10 and 11, it has been pointed out that the Municipal Council has filed a suit dated 12.12.2005 for declaration claiming the ownership over the property in dispute and for declaration that the sale deed executed by Bant Ram in favour of the occupant, is illegal, null and void. The Municipal Council, has also claimed a decree for possession of the said land. A copy of the plaint has been appended as Annexure R.9/2. Learned counsel for the occupant has vehemently argued that the occupant is a bona-fide purchaser for value and consideration having purchased the property after decision of the civil suit on 31.3.1981 and after the petition under the Act was dismissed in the year 1989. Therefore, the order declining the sanction of the building plans, is not sustainable. It is also argued that the public interest petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed by a person, who has a property adjoining the properties purchased by the occupant. A perusal of the record, prima-facie, shows that Bant Ram, the vendor of the occupant, set up a title on himself on the basis of adverse CWP No. 1641 of 2008 (5) possession. the issue of title claimed on adverse possession was given up, but the fact remains that the vendor of the occupant was granted decree for injunction on the basis of possession, whereas the proceedings under the Act initiated by the Municipal Council, were disposed of, after returning a finding that the question of title arises for which the summary jurisdiction, cannot be invoked. Admittedly, the Municipal Council has now filed a civil suit, claiming title on the suit property and also possession thereof from the occupant. All disputed questions regarding title of the vendor of the occupant over the property in dispute, are required to be examined in the aforesaid suit. A perusal of the record further shows that though the Municipal Council decided to file a suit claiming title over the suit property vide Resolution dated 2.3.2005, but the suit has been actually filed only in December, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit for possession has been filed only after institution of the Public Interest Litigation and that the proceedings for possession were delayed on account of the influence wielded by the occupant in association with his relation Lakhbir Singh, an Ex Municipal Councillor. But, we need not examine the said question as once the suit for declaration and possession, has been filed, all questions, which may arise between the Municipal Council and the occupant, need to be examined in the aforesaid suit alone. In view of the said fact, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the learned trial Court seized of the civil suit (Annexure R.2/9), to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from today. However, during the said period, the occupant shall not raise any construction over the property in question CWP No. 1641 of 2008 (6) keeping in view the fact that the property is alleged to be public property, in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court on 4.2.2008. With the said directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. (T.S. THAKUR) (HEMANT GUPTA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE March 17, 2009 ds