IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 10983 of 2007 Date of decision: 4.11.2009 Dalbir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr HS Gill, DAG Punjab for respondents-1 to 5. Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for respondent-6. None for respondents-7 and 8. S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to respondents-3 to 6 to hand over the possession of 3 acres of Shamlat Deh land which has been leased out to him in an open auction for the year 2006-07, for a sum of Rs 50,000/- per year from 29.6.2007 onwards. A further prayer has been made for directing the taking of appropriate legal action against respondents-5 to 8 for cheating the petitioner by leasing out the Shamlat land measuring 3 acres to the petitioner and not handing over the possession of the same and rather handing over the possession of 1 Kanal in the middle of the abovesaid land in which a drain is also running to the land of respondent-7 for some illegal construction. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that he had taken 3 acres of Shamlat Deh land on lease from the Gram Panchayat of village 1 CWP 10983 of 2007 Dhiro Kot, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The said land was leased out to the petitioner for a sum of Rs 50,000/- from 29.6.2007. It is alleged that respondents-5 to 7 i.e. the BDPO, Jandiala Guru, the Sarpanch of village Dhiro Kot and a Member Panchayat of Gram Panchayat village Dhiro Kot, respectively, were not handing over possession of the said land to the petitioner as Skattar Singh (respondent-8) who is the previous pattedar of the land was in occupation of the said land and was not handing over its possession. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner had pursued the matter of auctioning the land with Sukhdev Singh (respondent-6) Sarpanch of the village. According to the petitioner, respondent-6 was not interested in conducting the auction since in the open auction, he would not earn anything. As such, the date of auction was postponed from time to time so that Paddy season is over. The petitioner made representations to respondents-3 and 4 on 23.5.2007 requesting them to get the auction of the land conducted. Reminders were also sent in this regard on 4.6.2007. In response to the abovesaid letter, the BDPO, Jandiala Guru (respondent-5) wrote to the Sarpanch (respondent-6) to get an announcement made in the Gurudwara of the village that auction of the land would be conducted on 7.6.2007 at 11 a.m. in the premises of Govt Primary School. It is alleged that the respondents did not get the announcement made in the Gurudwara regarding holding of the auction on 7.6.2007 and the said date was allowed to pass in a clandestine manner. The DDPO, Amritsar (respondent-4) on 8.6.2007 sent a letter to the BDPO (respondent-5) regarding holding of the auction on 15.6.2007. The auction was held on the said date in which the petitioner also participated and his bid being the highest of Rs 50,000/-, it was accepted. He also made payment of Rs 50,000/-. After the auction was held, the petitioner requested respondents-5 to 7 to hand over the possession 2 CWP 10983 of 2007 of the land in question so that he could start ploughing/tilling the land. The petitioner made various complaints on 6.7.2007, 9.7.2007 and 12.7.2007 about the inaction on the part of the respondents in not handing over the possession of the land in question. Therefore, it is prayed that the possession of the land be given to the petitioner. In response, the stand taken by Sukhdev Singh Sarpanch (respondent-6) is that despite passing of the Resolution and asking the petitioner to come and take possession of the land, he did not turn up. It is stated that the Gram Panchayat of the village passed a Resolution dated 9.7.2007 (R6/1) and also informed the petitioner in writing vide letter dated 9.7.2007 (R6/2) to come at the spot on 12.7.2007 at 10 a.m. However, despite receiving the letter dated 9.7.207 (R6/2), the petitioner did not turn up at the land in dispute. The entire Panchayat waited for him at the land in dispute. Besides, vide Resolution dated 12.7.2007 (R6/3), it was again resolved by the Gram Panchayat to give another notice to the petitioner to cultivate the land. The petitioner was asked to come at the land on 15.7.2007 at 10 a.m. A separate notice (R6/4) in this regard was also served on the petitioner informing him to come at the spot on 15.7.2007. However, he again did not come. Thereafter, another notice dated 18.7.2007 (R6/5) was issued to the petitioner through registered post informing him to come at the spot for taking possession of the land in dispute on 25.7.2007. However, the petitioner again did not come at the spot on that date also. He was then served another notice dated 25.7.2007 (R6/6) informing him that he was himself responsible for not taking possession of the land in dispute. The said notice was refused by the petitioner. In any case, another notice dated 2.8.2007 (R6/7) was issued to the petitioner assuring him that he could also take Police help and the Gram Panchayat was with him, in case 3 CWP 10983 of 2007 anybody obstructs the cultivation of the land. The petitioner, however, refused to take possession of the land. It is stated that apart from the above letters, many other letters were issued but the petitioner did not turn up. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has infact not been served any notice and no postal receipt or other documents have been placed on record with regard to the sending of the notices. However, as per the stand of learned counsel for respondent-6, the said notices were duly served by registered post and the petitioner is only evading receipt of the same. In the circumstances, keeping in view the disputed nature of facts involved in the case and also the fact that the petitioner has allegedly been asked repeatedly to come and take possession of the land in question, he has failed to take the same, no ground for issuing a writ of mandamus by this Court for directing the respondents to hand over possession of the land in question to the petitioner, is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner, however, if so advised, may pursue his other remedies in accordance with law. 4.11.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 4