Read Order: Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, June 11, 2022: In a case where the petitioner was aggrieved by the construction made by the one of the respondents on the land allegedly leased out to him by the Municipal Committee, Ladwa, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has noticed that the said respondent already filed a civil suit and thus the decision of the Municipal Committee in not taking any final decision in pendency of the civil suit was “justified.”

The Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal held, “Thus, the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ladwa was justified in returning a finding that final action would abide by the decision of the aforementioned suit. No preemptive action can be taken. Being a defendant, the Municipal Committee can file a counterclaim and a separate suit need not be filed”

The petitioner filed a petition alleging that the sixth respondent had constructed shops in violation of the lease deed executed in its favour by the Municipal Committee, Ladwa and that despite a resolution having been passed by the Municipal Committee to take appropriate action, nothing was being done. 

It was also his grievance that the land of the Johar had been illegally leased out to the sixth respondent by an  order dated November 30, 2021, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to take a decision upon legal notice submitted by the petitioner. The said legal notice was decided vide a speaking order. This order was under challenge in this writ petition. 

Two issues were involved in this case, the first of which was whether the sixth respondent was granted 99 years lease without taking permission from the Deputy Commissioner; and whether the non-implementation of the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee, Ladwa was malafide

Regarding the first issue, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the permission of the Deputy Commissioner granted vide communication in 1976 was illegal because as per an RTI reply, the said communication did not relate to the office concerned. Thus, it was contended that evidently letter of 1976 referred to in the impugned order was a figment of imagination. 

With respect to this, the Court added that the argument could not be accepted as information was sought under the RTI Act from the Municipal Committee, Ladwa and the letter of 1976 was issued by the then Deputy Commissioner Kurukshetra, thus, the relevant office would have been the office of the Deputy Commissioner. 

“If the office of the Deputy Commissioner had given a similar reply the argument would have possessed merit but as of now the same can not be accepted”, the Court held. 

Regarding the issue of non-implementation of the resolution of 2018, the Court observed that there was laxity on the part of the Municipal Council. However, Justice Mittal added that before any action could be taken, the sixth respondent filed a civil suit and the same was pending adjudication. 

“Thus, the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ladwa was justified in returning a finding that final action would abide by the decision of the aforementioned suit”, the Court held while also adding, 

“No pre-emptive action can be taken. Being a defendant, the Municipal Committee can file a counterclaim and a separate suit need not be filed.”

In view of the above, the writ petition was dismissed. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment