CWP No. 19485 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19485 of 2009 Date of decision January 15, 2010 Ravinder Kumar ....... Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, Mini Secretariat, Hisar and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar where on a representation given to the Deputy Commissioner he took a decision on the basis of a direction given by this Court in CWP No. 13328 of 2009. While disposing of the representation the Deputy Commissioner has observed that the area in occupation by the petitioner is a common chowk and any encroachment thereon is illegal, since it has been held to be so by a Civil Court in Civil Suit No.20 of 1992 by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Hisar. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he has himself filed a suit against the Municipal Council in Civil Suit (Annexure P- 5) before the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Hisar for seeking for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the Municipal Committee from interfering with his possession. The petitioner states that the suit is CWP No. 19485 of 2009 2 pending and it has come to the final stage of arguments after conclusion of oral evidence. Any decision of the Municipal Council relating to a conclusion as an encroachment or an action for removal will have to await the decision of the Civil Court. In my view, the direction of the Deputy Commissioner that the encroachment on the property should be removed by following due process of law must be understood in the context of how the Civil Court would decide and how the objections in the decree obtained already in Civil Suit No.20 is disposed of. 3. In the pendency of the Civil suit with reference to the same property relating to the alleged entitlement of the petitioner in relation to the property, the order of the Deputy Commissioner observing that the encroachment would be removed by due process of law ought not itself cause any infringement of the right of the petitioner. The petitioner shall have no remedy before this Court and the order of the Deputy Commissioner shall be understood and given effect only in the light of the Civil Court judgment and the objections given to the Civil Court in Civil suit which is now pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hisar and in the light of the objections given to the enforcement of the decree in Civil Suit No.20 of 1988 by the petitioner. 4. Subject to the right of the petitioner to resist any action in the light of the Civil Court Judgment, that may be passed, the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 15 ,2010 archana