CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 55254 OF 2004 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 09, 2008
Shindo
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Antar Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner, a poor Harijan lady, has approached this
Court, seeking quashing of the order passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Balachaur, directing removing of a chhan (hut) in which
she is living as it is a cause of nuisance. Her plea is that she would
be rendered without a shelter in case the order passed by Sub
Divisional Magistrate is carried out. She claims that land underneath
the `chhan’ (hut) does not belong to Gurdwara as claimed. It is her
plea that evidence in regard to nuisance being caused by her was
not sufficient to establish nuisance and the order had been made on
account of some political rivalry, since the petitioner had not
CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 55254 OF 2004 :{ 2 }:
supported the then Sarpanch of the village. These facts, however,
were disputed by counsel for the respondents, who also had pointed
out that the petitioner was having a house in the village. The petition
was subsequently admitted and interim order, staying operation of
the impugned order, was continued.
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner and the private
respondent today.
I have gone through the impugned order. The primary
reliance by the S.D.M. to pass the impugned order is on the report
given by Naib Tehsildar, Balachaur. The then Naib Tehsildar,
Balachaur, had inspected the land in dispute and had prepared a site
plan. As per this report, Sarup Singh son of Dalipa has constructed
a house in Khasra No.42, on 2 marla of land. The petitioner has
constructed a chhan in 8 marlas of land. 4-1/2 marlas of land is with
one Gian Singh, who has installed Guhari. Bhajan Singh has statedly
kept fire woods in 9 marlas of land. The report further mentions that
no Gurdwara is situated in these khasra numbers. It is on this basis,
the petitioner had submitted before the S.D.M that there is no illegal
possession by her on Gurdwara land. However, without recording
any finding, if the petitioner had occupied any Gurdwara land or has
caused nuisance, the S.D.M accepted the application and directed
that the land of Gurdwara be got vacated.
The main ground to seek eviction of the petitioner on
account of nuisance was that she had occupied the Gurdwara land.
This fact was required to be proved and established on the basis of
relevant evidence and material, before any direction for her eviction
CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 55254 OF 2004 :{ 3 }:
could be made. Despite the evidence available to the contrary,
S.D.M has directed eviction of the petitioner. The evidence, which
was led in the form of report of Naib Tehsildar was that she had not
occupied any land belonging to Gurdwara.
In this background, S.D.M, Balachaur, in my view, was
totally misconceived in passing the impugned order. The same, as
such, can not be sustained and accordingly is set-aside. However,
the parties would be at liberty to move fresh application in case there
is any nuisance still being created by the petitioner or any other
person.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
September 09,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE