C.W.P.No. 9842 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 9842 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.4.2011 Badan Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present: Mr. V.S.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Ramesh Chahal, Advocate for respondent No.6. RANJAN GOGOI, CJ. : (Oral) This PIL has been filed on the following facts:- According to the petitioner, who is resident of village Dharodi, he belongs to Sihag community whereas almost all the villagers belong to Nain (JAT) community. In fact according to the petitioner there are 52 adjoining villages of Nain (JAT) community. The petitioner alleges that he was summoned by the KHAP Panchayat of the aforesaid 52 villages and on account of the alleged failure of the petitioner to comply with the 'diktat' of the said KHAP the petitioner has been socially boycotted and he has been prohibited from using the common land of the village, pond, well, path and other public places. All the said actions, according to the petitioner, are part of a calculated plan to deprive the petitioner of his property in the village and to illegally take over the land of the petitioner. Specific allegations in this regard have been levelled against respondents No. 5, 6 and 7. C.W.P.No. 9842 of 2010 2 By an interim order dated 25.5.2010 this court had directed the respondent-State to provide full protection to the life and property of the petitioner. It appears, from the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, that pursuant to the said order an inquiry was conducted in the matter by the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Narwana. The Superintendent of Police, Jind who has filed the said affidavit on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 has stated that the result of the inquiry had revealed that the petitioner had some monetary dealings with one Hukam Chand Mahajan a Commission Agent and the petitioner, in fact, borrowed a sum of Rs.3.50 Lac from the aforesaid Hukam Chand Mahajan. The Superintendent of Police in the affidavit filed has further stated that the aforesaid Commission Agent had left Narwana for an unknown place. As money was owed by him to other residents, one Rajesh resident of village Danoda alongwith respondents No.6 and 7 had sought to recover the sum of Rs.3.50 Lac which was taken by the petitioner from Hukam Chand Mahajan. According to the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1.00 Lac and had also made a statement that he did not apprehend any danger to his life. The affidavit of the Superintendent of Police further recites that statements of respondents No.5 to 7 have been recorded wherein they have categorically denied that any attempt to socially boycott the petitioner had been made and further that the allegations of the land grabbing and restraint on the use of common land of the village, pond, well, path and public places are false and fabricated. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently asserted that the report of the Station House Officer ought not to be accepted by the court as the same has been submitted under pressure we are C.W.P.No. 9842 of 2010 3 unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner in the absence of any corroborative material. If the court is to go by the said report, which has to be done, certain highly disputed questions of fact emerge from the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties. In such a situation no effective directions can be issued by the Court. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by any action of any individual or body which has the affect of infringing his legal rights it is always open to him to move the appropriate forum which would be competent in law to pass necessary orders after ascertaining the true and correct facts of the case. We, therefore, decline to entertain this PIL any further and consider it appropriate to dispose of the same with the direction that the Superintendent of Police, Jind and the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Narwana will ascertain the threat perception of the petitioner and, if so required, provide adequate protection to him and his family members. With the aforesaid directions PIL is disposed of. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE April 21, 2011 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____