LPA No.404 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.404 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 25.3.2010 Puran Singh ............Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. N. K. Suneja, Advocate for the appellant. 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? ALOK SINGH, J. 1. The present LPA has been filed by the petitioner/appellant assailing the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby dismissing CWP No.14580 of 2007. 2. The brief facts of the present appeal are that petitioner entered into the agreement to sell for the land measuring 25 kanals LPA No.404 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 5 ½ marlas on 13.8.2004 with respondent No.4; petitioner had executed two sale deeds in favour of respondent No.4 on 27.6.2005 and on 27.2.2006 respectively for land measuring 16 kanals; later some dispute arose between the parties and respondent No.4 threatened to occupy the land in dispute (remaining 9 kanals 5 ½ marlas) which was the subject matter of the agreement to sell; petitioner filed civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Patiala alongwith application for ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent No.4 or their agent not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land measuring 9 kanas 5 ½ marlas; the said application for ad-interim injunction was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 24.4.2006; the appeal filed by the petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Patiala was also dismissed vide order dated 6.1.2007; petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Civil Revision No.204 of 2007 in which status-quo order was passed by this Court vide order dated 22.1.2007; meanwhile respondent-authorities issued a letter dated 6.2.2006 for setting up a residential colony namely Nimakh Enclave at Village Khil District Patiala including the land which is disputed in the civil suit; the permission granted by the authorities in favour of respondent No.4 to develop residential colony over the land which was never sold to respondent No.4 was challenged by way of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 10.11.2009 disposed of the writ petition with the direction, if in a civil revision arising from the suit a finding comes pertaining to the possession of respondent No.4 over the land in LPA No.404 of 2010 (O&M) -3- dispute then license granted in favour of respondent No.4 shall remain valid and if finding comes in favour of the petitioner then that license granted in favour of respondent No.4 shall not operate and competent authority shall hold the inquiry in the matter. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant and perused the record. 4. Undisputedly, civil suit is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Undisputedly, ad-interim injunction was refused by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. Undisputedly, civil revision is pending before this Court arising out of the rejection of ad-interim injunction application. We are of the opinion that once civil suit is pending, writ petition does not lie pertaining to the same property, merely because license was issued in favour of respondent No.4 during the pendency of the suit to develop the residential colony on the property in dispute. Grant of license during the pendency of the civil suit does not give any cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court challenging the license. If any development takes place during the pendency of the civil suit ordinarily Civil Court should be approached by way of amendment and seeking appropriate relief in a subsequent changed circumstances. Ordinarily, Writ Court should not be approached in such type of matters. 5. However, learned Single Judge not only entertained the writ petition but made correct observation that if in a civil revision pending in this Court, respondent No.4 is found in a possession, then license to develop a residential colony thereon would be valid and if LPA No.404 of 2010 (O&M) -4- finding comes in favour of the petitioner then license would not be operative and inquiry shall be held. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge rightly entertained the writ petition and rightly made observations therein. We find no illegality in the judgment of learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 25.03.2010 JUDGE ashish