Nasib Singh vs Estate Officer, Union Territory and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to rspondents Nos.1 and 2 to remove the unauthorised "Khokhas" on old Ropar road, Mani Majra, Union Territory, Chandigarh in accordance with the order dated 15.6.1994 passed by the Administrator/Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

The aforementioned prayer of the petitioner is founded on his assertion that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not vacated unauthorised occupation of the public property in spite of the fact that they were allotted site Nos. 583 and 600 on 11.4.1979 and 20.4.1979 respectively. In lieu of the Khokhas situated on old Ropar Road, Mani Majra, Union Territory, Chandigarh. He has also averred that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not vacated unauthorised occupation in spite of the order Annexure P-9 passed by the Administrator/Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

In Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the counter-affidavit dated 27.11.1998 filed by Shri Ashish Kundra, Land Acquisition Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been stated that the Khokhas situated on old Ropar Road in front of the land of the petitioner fall within the jurisdiction of Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra, Chandigarh and the same is under the control of Municipal Corporation and further that the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh has nothing to do with them. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed separate but similar written statements. They have challenged the petitioner''s locus standi to maintain this writ petition by stating that he is guilty of concealing the material fact, namely, filing of the civil suit by his father - Shri Chanchal Singh (now dead). They have also averred that their Khokhas do not encroach upon public land and the sites allotted to them are not in lieu of the disputed Khokhas.

At the hearing of the petition, Shri Alok Jain made a statement that the Khokhas in dispute are situated on the private property of the petitioner, which has been inherited by him from his father and not on the property belonging to the Municipal Corporation of the Notified Area Committee. Shri A.D. Sukhija, counsel for non-official respondents submitted that being the successor of late Shri Chanchal Singh, the petitioner is bound by the decree dated 13.6.1978 passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh in Civil Suit No. 166 of 1975 instituted by Shri Chanchal Singh. He also pointed out that appeal filed by Shri Chanchal Singh was dismissed in default by the Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh on 23.11.1979.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous efforts to convince us that the petitioner''s failure to make a mention of the suit filed by his father and the passing of decree by the court of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh as well as the dismissal of appeal by the Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh should not be made a ground for declining relief to him. Shri Dhiman submitted that unauthorised occupation of public property by respondent Nos.3 and 4 be clearly proved from the evidence available on record.

After having given serious thought to the respective submissions, we are convinced that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed because:-

(i) The petitioner is guilty of highly contumacious conduct of concealing the fact that the suit filed by his father- Shri Chanchal Singh was partly decreed and the appeal filed by him was dismissed in default. In our opinion, the facts relating to the previous litigation between Shri Chanchal Singh, father of the petitioner and the non-official respondents has direct bearing on the issue raised in this petition and it was the solemn duty of the petitioner to place all the facts in a correct perspective and then make a prayer for grant of relief. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact that suit filed by his father was partially decreed and the appeal filed by him was dismissed in default.

(ii) The issue whether the disputed Khokhas exist on the public property or on the land belonging to the petitioner can be decided only after giving opportunity to the parties to produce oral as well as documentary evidence and we do not find any rhyme or reason to exercise jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding such contentious issue.

In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be free to avail remedy by filing Civil Suit.