Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 March, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038446-DB
CWP-2654-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:038446-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2654-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.03.2024
Rajbir and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate,
for the respondent-HSVP.
****
ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have prayed for the following substantive
relief:-
"Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a
writ in the Nature of Mandamus of Direction to the
respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from
their own land situated in village Tigra Tehsil and
Distt. Gurugram mentioned in the Para No.2 of the
writ petition till the decision of Diary No.13216 of
2019 case title State of Hayana Vs. Mahender, which
is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Further praying for staying the auction process of
the petitioner's land situated in village Tigra Distt.
Gurugram And Further Praying to take appropriate
action against the concerned officers, who have tried
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038446-DB
CWP-2654-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:038446-DB
to dispossess the petitions from their own land
contrary to the law without serving any notice.
For issuance of any other appropriate Writ,
Order of Direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem just and proper, keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case."
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reference to the order
and judgment dated 29.01.2018, rendered by this Court in CWP-13425-
2015 (Vijay Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), and other
connected cases, submits that interference in possession of the petitioners
by the respondent authorities is totally unwarranted. Therefore, it is urged
that suitable action be taken against the erring officials, who attempted to
dispossess the petitioners, and the authorities be also restrained from
auctioning the land in question.
A reply by way of affidavit of Estate Officer-II, HSVP,
Gurugram, on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, has been filed in the
Court today and the same is taken on record. Copy furnished.
Learned counsel for the respondents, in reference to the
averments set out in paragraph No.26 of the reply, submit that the
demolition was carried out on 31.01.2024 and 01.02.2024, in the wake of
the letter dated 20.01.2024 received in the office of Estate Officer-II,
issued by Station Head Officer, Police Station Sector-56, Gurugram. For,
contraband substances, such as ganja and spurious liquor, were being
sold from the jhuggies that were set up on the land in question. And, as a
result, two separate FIRs have also been registered. Be that as it may, it is
submitted, for an SLP (C) No.011186/2019, against the order and
judgment dated 29.01.2018 (ibid), is pending before the Supreme Court
and is posted for March 22, 2024 (tentatively), the petitioners would not
be dispossessed till the final decision in the matter. Likewise, the
apprehension of the petitioners that land in question is sought to be
auctioned is equally misconceived. For the petition is bereft of any details
as regards the e-auction notice, vide which the land in question was/is
sought to be auctioned. Further, the demolition was not carried out to
auction the property or create any third party rights, but, as indicated
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038446-DB
CWP-2654-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:038446-DB
earlier, only to remove the illegal jhuggies, on the request of the
Enforcement Agencies.
That being so, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that let the petition be disposed of, in terms of the statement made by
learned counsel for the respondents as also the averments set out in the
reply.
The petition is accordingly disposed of, in terms of the
statements made by learned counsel for the parties.
(ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
18.03.2024
Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
