IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.2178 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 10.12.2009
Raghav Bindal ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sh. Satyender Duhan ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: None.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
CM No.28988-CII of 2009
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
COCP No.2178 of 2009
As per the averments made in this case, vide order dated
10.3.2005 passed in CWP No.3733 of 2005, dispossession of the
petitioner was stayed from the land in dispute. However, the respondent
took symbolic possession vide Rapat Roznamcha No.649 dated 14.3.2006.
In these circumstances, the petitioner filed COCP No.1318 of 2006 wherein
according to the petitioner, the mistake was admitted by the respondent.
However, it was explained that since the Department of Industries and
HSIIDC were not impleaded as party, order of this Court was not to their
knowledge. According to the petitioner, further vide Rapat Roznamcha 207
dated 16.11.2006, the entry of symbolic possession was declared null and
void and an entry to this effect, in the revenue record was also effected and
the aforesaid COCP was rendered infructuous vide order dated
19.12.2006.
The petitioner also filed CWP No.12894 of 2006 challenging
the award passed by the respondents and both the writ petitions i.e. CWP
No.3733 of 2005 and CWP No.12894 of 2006 are pending adjudication
before this Court. Thus, according to the petitioner, the possession
COCP No.2178 of 2009(O&M) -2-
was still with him which could not be delivered to HSIIDC and as such,
there was no scope for the respondent to take over the possession.
The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that on
10.11.2009, some persons who have stated themselves to be from the
office of HSIIDC have taken forcible possession of the property of the
petitioner by locking the premises and hence, the present petition. To
substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred
to a photograph Annexure P-4 in this regard.
The averments with regard to the taking over of the
possession by the officials of the HSIIDC on 10.11.2009 as alleged by the
petitioner are vague. Nothing can be made out from Annexure P-4 that the
aforesaid lock has been put on the property by the officials of the HSIIDC.
In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is not inclined to take
cognizance of this petition.
Dismissed.
However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek any other
appropriate remedy in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances,
if any.
December 10, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE