IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.14008 of 2007
Date of Decision: March 17, 2009
Davinder Kumar Jain ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
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?
Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Rameshwar Malik, Additional AG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Shri Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5.
Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
Hemant Gupta, J.
This petition, filed in public interest, is for issuance of a writ of
certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing
respondents No. 1 to 3 not to transfer the ownership of Government land at
Railway Road, Kalka.
It is averred that the Municipal Council, Kalka, is owner of the
land at Railway Road, Kalka. An area measuring 25 feet x 18 feet out of the
said land, was given to respondent No.6 on Tehbazari. Respondent No. 6
raised a permanent structure with brick and tin roof on the said land in
violation of the condition of Tehbazari for which a notice dated 30.12.1987
was served upon the said respondent. A civil suit for injunction was filed by
CWP No.14008 of 2007 (2)
respondent No.6 against the Municipal Council, which was dismissed
holding that respondent No. 6 has failed to prove to be in possession of the
same on Tehbazari or as a licencee. The appeal against the said judgment
was also dismissed. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court
(Annexure P.1) appended with the writ petition shows that the Municipal
Council has taken a stand that the suit premises was given to the plaintiff on
Tehbazari.
It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.6 has not paid
Tehbazari and without any Resolution of the Municipal Council, the land in
possession of respondent No.6 has been decided to be sold to the said
respondent even without receiving the arrears of Tehbazari amounting to
Rs.16,19,978/-.
In the reply filed before this Court, it has been pointed out that
a representation was made by respondent No. 6 on 12.8.1994 for purchase
of the aforesaid land on the same terms and conditions on which 32 other
similarly situated persons were sold land by the Municipal Council. On
such representation, the Municipal Council passed a Resolution on
23.11.1994 with the condition that the said respondent shall construct over
the plot after leaving an area of 6 feet x 8 feet, so that the width of the road
can be increased for the smooth traffic as and when need arises. The Deputy
Commissioner sought approval of the State Government to sell the
aforesaid plot vide its letter dated 19.7.1995 and on such recommendation,
the State Government, through the Financial Commissioner vide
communication dated 18.11.2005 permitted the sale of 61 sq.yards of
Municipal land to respondent No.6 on payment of total amount of
Rs.2,18,380/-. It has also been pointed out that respondent No. 6 has
CWP No.14008 of 2007 (3)
deposited a sum of Rs.1,10,700/- on 10.8.2007 towards arrears of Tehbazari
@ Rs.3/-per sq.feet. Pursuant to the approval granted by the State
Government, the sale deed in respect of 61 sq. yards of Municipal land was
executed on 12.9.2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
Municipal land has been agreed to be sold to respondent No.6 illegally and
at a throwaway price. It is contended that the plot is situated on the Railway
Road and the sale of such land has the effect of diminishing the width of the
road, therefore, the sale of such plot is not justified and proper.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, but do not find
any ground to interfere in the decision of the Municipal Council to sell 61
sq. yards of the Municipal land to respondent No.6. The process of sale of
land was initiated with the Resolution of the Municipal Council dated
23.11.1994. The petitioner was a member of the Municipal Council from
the year 2000 till 2005. The Financial Commissioner, Urban Development
Department, has approved the proposal of sale after the same was
recommended by the Deputy Commissioner. Such approval has come
almost after 11 long years of the Resolution having been passed by the
Municipal Council. During 11 years, no steps were taken by the Municipal
Council to rescind or modify the resolution resolving to sell land in favour
of respondent No.6. No steps were ever taken by the petitioner as a member
of the Municipal Council, to get the decision to sell the land modified. Still
further, the plot is admittedly in possession of the petitioner or his
predecessor(s) since 1956. Therefore, the argument that the width of the
road shall stand diminished on account of sale of such plot, does not seem
to be reasonable or plausible. In any case, if the authorities decide at any
CWP No.14008 of 2007 (4)
subsequent stage that the area of the property sold is required for the
construction of road, the same can be acquired in accordance with law, but,
we do not find that the decision of sale of 61 sq. yards of land to respondent
No.6, lacks bona-fide or is actuated by any extraneous consideration.
The petitioner and respondent No.6 are residents of Kalka, a
small town in the State of Haryana. It appears that the inter-se disputes
between the inhabitants of such area, are sought to be raised under the guise
of public interest litigation. We do not find that any ground is made out for
setting aside the sale of such land in favour of respondent No.6.
Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the
same is dismissed. No costs.
(T.S. THAKUR) (HEMANT GUPTA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
March 17, 2009
ds