IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.22031 of 2011 Date of decision : 28.11.2011 Harjinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.10.2011 to say that it is “illegal, arbitrary and passed on extraneous considerations”. He has further made a prayer that directions be issued to respondent No.1 to hold an inquiry against respondent No.3 for acting in connivance with the private respondents while passing the aforesaid order. Along with the aforesaid prayer the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed not to dispossess him from the land in dispute without adopting the due process of law. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner and private respondents have been litigating against each others since long and in the process numerous orders have come into existence passed by C.W.P.No.22031 of 2011 -2- various authorities and this Court, which established that the private respondents were in possession of the suit property. The Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala had held the private respondents to be in possession and the suit of the petitioner preferred separately was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.1999. Since there was a serious dispute regarding possession, it had also resulted in the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. One such round of litigation reached this Court by way of Crl.Misc.No.5282-M of 2005 which was at behest of the petitioner and was dismissed. The petitioner had questioned the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhulath, district Kapurthala dated 23.10.1996 as also the order dated 6.12.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala wherein the possession of private respondents was categorically upheld initially by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and then by the Addl. Sessions Judge which order was further upheld by this Court when the petition was dismissed and it was specifically noticed in the order “that the civil court also did not find the petitioner in possession”, which factor was taken to be a persuasive one to decline the claim of the petitioner, and to confirm the orders dated 23.10.1996 and 16.12.2003. By virtue of the impugned order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhulath has referred to in detail the relevant orders passed by different courts and directed that possession of the disputed land be given to the heirs of late Sukhwant Singh son of Gurbaksh Singh and the amount of lease may also be got returned and before giving possession it should be ensured that there is no impediment or C.W.P.No.22031 of 2011 -3- restraint order passed by any court. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhulath has observed in his order that possession was being given in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 26.8.2008 against which the petitioner has not filed any further proceedings to challenge the same. It is this order by this court which had specifically upheld the orders of the then Sub Divisional Magistrate and that of the Addl. Sessions Judge and commented positively on the aspect of possession of the private respondents. In view of the aforesaid, when the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhulath is well reasoned and based upon the earlier orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Addl. Sessions Judge and this Court, I am of the opinion that the effect of those orders cannot be negated in the proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is to be noticed that the civil court had specifically affirmed the possession of private respondents besides the other authorities including this Court and thus the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhulath had little option but to pass the order ensuring the possession of the private respondents which apparently seems to have been disturbed by the petitioner to his advantage. It is evident that the petitioner has usurped the land despite the orders of the civil court and also the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Addl. Sessions Judge in earlier proceedings which found approval by this Court. The petitioner prays that possession be retrieved from him in due course of law. C.W.P.No.22031 of 2011 -4- I am afraid that the petitioner who is apparently a land grabber and who has defied the justifiable orders of the civil court as also the other courts cannot claim any such indulgence from the court to legitimize and perpetuate the possession of land which has been acquired through an ill-gotten and illegal process. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed, but before parting with the order the Court is also constrained to note that the petitioner has made a specific prayer to say that the order has been passed on extraneous considerations and therefore it is illegal, arbitrary and should be set aside. During the course of proceedings the court confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner with the question as to whether he has any specific information, knowledge or material to substantiate his plea that the order has been passed on extraneous consideration, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence justified the introduction of such words in the petition. When the court has evaluated the facts from where it has been revealed that court after court and forum after forum have held that the possession was that of the private respondents and the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate merely seeks to reiterate what has been stated earlier with a direction that the possession be restored to the private respondents, which obviously has been disturbed by the petitioner to his advantage unauthorisedly, I am of the opinion that the allegations levelled against the official only reflects rancidity of mind and such practice has to be deprecated. A person who himself is a violator of law cannot be permitted to make unsubstantiated accusations against public C.W.P.No.22031 of 2011 -5- authorities. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The possession of the land shall forthwith be delivered to the private respondents with the assistance of the police within a period of three weeks from today, if not possible earlier. The Sub Divisional Magistrate shall ensure the compliance of this order as also its own order dated 19.10.2011 in toto. 28.11.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss