CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8194 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 30, 2009 Ram Singh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioners purchased land measuring 87 kanals 3 marlas situated in Village Patti Kakran, Shahbad, District Kurukshetra, for valuable consideration. The mutation of this land was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners and they were recorded as owners in possession. On 9.10.2001, respondent-State Government issued letter, Annexure P-1, containing direction that alienation of the land allotted to L.Rs of Hem Raj Nangia is stayed. The land purchased by the petitioners was included in this order. Some entry was made in the revenue record, which prejudicial CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8194 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: affected the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners made enquiries from the Department and learnt that one Daulat Ram had filed a revision against Chaman Lal Nangia, claiming rights over the land measuring 34 kanals 2 marlas situated in Palwal, District Faridabad. This revision was decided on 5.10.2001. No proceedings qua the petitioners were pending. The allottee accordingly challenged order dated 5.10.2001 before this Court. On 8.11.2001, the Division Bench of this court stayed the operation of this order. Faced with this situation, the State challenged the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby this land had been allotted by filing Civil Writ Petition No.19792 of 2001. This writ petition was, however, dismissed on 20.12.2001. The petitioners served a legal notice but the respondents did not take any action. The petitioners accordingly filed Civil Writ Petition No.16452 of 2002 whereby they sought quashing of the impugned letter. The Division Bench of this Court allowed this writ petition by observing that no proceedings of any kind in respect of the land purchased by the petitioners were pending. Learned State counsel would point out that against the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.19792 of 2001, State has already filed a Special Leave Petition. Considering that this Court has remanded the case, proceedings were initiated before respondent No.2. The petitioners filed an application for supply of the copy of the case allegedly remanded and pending before him. On 5.4.2006, the proceedings were dropped on the ground that the respondents ceased to have jurisdiction and the file was consigned to record room. On 18.9.2007, the petitioners made a representation to Tehsildar (Sales), CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8194 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: Kurukshetra, for removing the stay entry in the revenue record made pursuant to the letter dated 9.10.2001. This entry still was not removed from the record. Since order passed by this Court was not being complied with, the petitioners filed a contempt petition bearing COCP No.1612 of 2007 in November 2007. The respondents filed reply, stating that the entry in the revenue records stood removed. The Contempt Petition was accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. This happened on 13.3.2008. The petitioner complains that on the very next day i.e. on 14.3.2008, the petitioners were issued a notice and were directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 26.3.2008. On 13.3.2008, respondent No.2 again stayed the alienation of the land. The petitioners again filed a Contempt Petition before this Court on 25.3.2008. That Contempt Petition was disposed of, entitling the petitioners to challenge the order which was passed by respondent No.2. The petitioners thereafter appeared before respondent No.2 and asked him to supply copy of the application dated 17.3.2008. However, no copy was supplied and order was reserved. The petitioners accordingly have challenged the order dated 26.3.2008 through the present writ petition. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. The petitioners have impleaded Joint Secretary, Government of Haryana in personal capacity as well. He has also filed reply, adopting the reply filed by the State. The short grievance raised by the petitioners is that in view of order, Annexure P-5, all the proceedings were dropped and it was specifically recorded that no proceedings were pending in this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8194 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: case. When the petitioners filed a Contempt Petition, a statement was made that the stray entry, which was there, has been removed. On the very next day, the same issue was reopened. Though the State may have filed a Special Leave Petition against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court but as on date, the case can not be reopened by respondent No.2. No justification is seen from the reply filed, which would entitle the respondents to reopen this case. Once it was held that no case was pending and the file was consigned to record room, it is not understood, which application or which case has again been reopened. The grievance of the petitioner that he is being troubled by respondent No.2 can not be easily discarded. The action will be against the order passed in Contempt Petition. Earlier, a statement was made before this Court in the Contempt Petition that the stray entry stood corrected. The reopening of the case on the very next day does give an indication that respondent No.2 is taking up this case with some sort of prejudice. This was so urged by the counsel for the petitioner but need not be pursued any further. In view of the background, as noticed, it is to be seen if respondent No.2 could re-open the case once it was dropped earlier on the ground that it ceased to have jurisdiction. Even a statement was made before the contempt court that the entry is removed. Re- opening of the case in the manner does not appear justified, specially so when earlier proceedings were dropped on the ground of want of jurisdiction. How can these proceedings be now initiated. This aspect may be considered by the authorities concerned. The exercise of power by respondent No.2 appears without jurisdiction CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8194 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: and needs to be corrected. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside being without jurisdiction as viewed by respondent No.2 himself. March 30,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE