High CourtsDivision Bench

Ranjeet Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 2 June 2014 · Citation: (2014) 06 SHI CK 0136

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sureshwar Thakur, J · Rajiv Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 8782/2013 with COPC No. 177/2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 583 words

Rajiv Sharma, J.—A complaint was received from the local residents as well as Gram Panchayat Mawa Sindian, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh i.e. respondent No. 3 on 1.9.2009, regarding unauthorized encroachments made on the Government land by respondents No. 4 to 8. It was forwarded to Tehsildar Amb, for inquiry and report. The inquiry report was received by the office of Tehsildar Amb on 17.3.2010. The proceedings were initiated on the same day against respondents No. 4 to 8. Encroachment proceedings initiated before the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Amb were decided against the respondents vide order dated 7.2.2011. They were ordered to be evicted. The orders are annexure R-2/1 and R-2/2. Departmental action was also taken against government official, Joginder Singh, Patwari. He was retired compulsorily from service on 30.9.2011. Order dated 7.2.2011 in annexure R-2/1, was assailed in appeal before the SDO (Civil)-cum-Collector, Amb Sub Division District Una by respondents No. 4 to 8. Order of the Assistant Collector Amb, was stayed. Appeal was dismissed by the Collector Amb vide order dated 6.12.2013, vide annexure R-2/3. Thereafter, competent authority has issued warrant of ejectment on 7.2.2014 for dispossession of the encroachers physically on the spot vide annexure R-2/4.

2.

Case of the petitioner is that despite issuance of warrant of ejectment, encroachments were not removed.

3.

This Court directed the authorities concerned to execute the warrant of ejectment. Since SDO (Civil) had failed to comply with the order, District Collector was ordered to do the needful on 26.5.2014.

4.

Contempt proceedings were initiated against Ashok Chauhan, SDO (Civil) Amb for not complying the order of the Court. He is present in the Court. He has placed on record a copy of communication dated 28.5.2014, which reads as under:

In compliance of the orders of Hon''ble High Court, Shimla (H.P.) in CWP No. 8782 of 2013-I titled Ranjeet Singh vs. State of HP and others passed by Hon''ble Justice Sh. Rajeev Sharma (Judge) and Hon''ble Justice Sh. Sureshwar Thakur (Judge) dated 20.5.2014 and subsequent order dated 26.5.2014, the warrants of ejectment issued by Tehsildar Amb have been executed fully within the stipulated period of 48 hours as directed by the Hon''ble Court by evicting the encroachers Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Sh. Arjun Singh, Sh. Suram Singh, Sh. Suraj Singh, Sh. Niranjan Singh, Sh. Joginder Singh, Sh. Shankar Singh, Sh. Nakul Dev, Sh. Yudhister Singh all residents of Village Mawa Sindhian from the Government land by dismantling structures constructed thereupon.

5.

It is evident from the text of the letter that warrant of possession stands executed and encroachments have been removed.

6.

In view of above, the petition has become infructuous. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the State has indulged in pick and choose policy and similarly situate persons who have encroached over the Government land have not been evicted.

7.

Before parting with the judgment, we order the State to initiate proceedings against the persons who have encroached upon the Government land and to complete the proceedings within a period of six months from today.

8.

In view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed as infructuous. Pending applications if any are also disposed of. No costs.

COPC No. 177/2014

9.

In view of the order passed in the main matter, the present contempt proceedings have become infructuous and the same are dismissed as such. Notice is discharged. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.