Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 666 (PNJ)

Ajay Chopra v. State of Punjab

2009-04-15

S.S.SARON

body2009
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:-This petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking transfer of all cases pending between the parties arising out of case FIR No.6 dated 3.1.2003 registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 209 IPC from the Courts at Ludhiana to the Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Haryana. 2. The petitioner, it is stated, is a practicing lawyer in the District Courts, Ludhiana. He is being prosecuted in case FIR No.6 dated 3.1.2003 registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana. Respondents No.2, 3 and 5 are also Advocates. Respondent No.4 is a Clerk of respondent No.2. They are the complainants in the case. It is submitted that tension brews up in the Court when the parties appear as a result of which there is no congenial atmosphere or decorum in the Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the matter is liable to be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Haryana. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has submitted that the case may be transferred to any place outside Ludhiana. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that he has no objection to the transfer of the case. 5. Respondents No.2 to 4 have not put in appearance. A perusal of the order sheet shows that they had taken time to file reply and vide order dated 21.4.2008 last opportunity was granted to file reply subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. The defence of the said respondents was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 16.12.2008. On 11.2.2009, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 ensured that the order dated 16.12.2008 would be complied with. However, no one is present on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. 6. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in the trial of the case titled State v. Vijay B. Verma and 15 others pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, 57 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution Therefore, it is submitted that in case the said case is transferred out of Ludhiana, it would be difficult to secure the presence of the witnesses before the Court. 7. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that a prayer has been made for transfer of five cases from the Courts at Ludhiana to a Court of competent jurisdiction outside Ludhiana. The cases mentioned at Sr. No. (i) to (iv) in the head note of the petition are criminal revision petitions and are pending in the Courts of different Additional Sessions Judges at Ludhiana. Case mentioned at Sr. No. (v) is the trial case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. It is in the said case at Sr. No. (v) that 57 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. In the circumstances, it would be inexpedient to transfer the trial of the case which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Ludhiana as the witnesses to be examined by the prosecution are primarily from Ludhiana. However, the other cases which are criminal revision petitions pending in the different Courts of Additional Sessions Judges may in the facts and circumstances be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction outside Ludhiana. Besides, they can be consolidated before one Court. 8. Accordingly, cases mentioned at Sr. No. (i) to (iv) in the head note of the petition are liable to be withdrawn from the respective Courts of Additional Sessions Judges and transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and the learned Sessions Judge may hear the criminal revision petitions himself or entrust them to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Fatehgarh Sahib. However, the trial of the case at Sr. No.(v) State v. Vijay B. Verma is not liable to be transferred and the petition seeking transfer of the said case at Sr. No.(v) merits dismissal. 9. In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with a direction that cases at Sr. Nos.(i) to (iv) as detailed in the head note of the petition are withdrawn from the respective Courts of Additional Sessions Judges at Ludhiana and transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib may hear the cases or assign them to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Fatehgarh Sahib. The parties shall appear before the transferee Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 20.5.2009. The learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib may hear the cases or assign them to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Fatehgarh Sahib. The parties shall appear before the transferee Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 20.5.2009. In case, respondents No.2 to 4 do not appear, they shall be informed by the transferee Court regarding the transfer of the cases. The prayer for transfer of case at Sr. No. (v) titled State v. Vijay B. Verma pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana is dismissed. 2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1150 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh CWP No.15963 of 2007 Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana {Decided on 16/04/2009} For the Petitioner: Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana. For the Respondent No.5: Mr.Vijay S.Kajla, Advocate. Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Shamlat deh--Title of land--Ownership changed in 1955-56 in name of Gram Panchayat--Land in revenue record shown as ‘Gair Mumkin Pahar’ and in possession of Forest of Department--Petitioner could not show that they were in cultivating possession for 12 years prior to 26.1.1950--Concurrent finding by all authorities below that land Shamlat deh and would be in ownership of Gram Panchayat--No interference--|Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 13-A. (Para 3) JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.:- The petitioners claiming themselves to be in possession of this land from the time of their ancestors have impugned the order passed by the authorities holding the Gram Panchayat to be owner of the said land. Reference is made to entries for the year 1938-39 showing the land measuring 159 Bighas 12 Biswas as owned and possessed by the proprietors of the village, including the petitioners. The land comprising in Khasra Nos.1849, 1859/1, 139 and 1860 is claimed to be in cultivating possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as per jamabandi for the year 1941-42. Even after consolidation, the land continued to be shown in possession of predecessors of the petitioners. The petitioners have themselves averred that for the first time in the revenue entries for the years 1945-46 and 1955-56, the possession of the Forest Department and the petitioners is indicated. Even after consolidation, the land continued to be shown in possession of predecessors of the petitioners. The petitioners have themselves averred that for the first time in the revenue entries for the years 1945-46 and 1955-56, the possession of the Forest Department and the petitioners is indicated. This is stated to be incorrectly recorded in the revenue record and reference is made to an order passed by Addl.District Judge, Gurgaon in favour of the petitioners where they have been awarded compensation for the land acquired. 2. On 27.7.2000, petitioners instituted a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (for short “the Act”) for seeking declaration that they are owners of the land and that it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. District Collector dismissed the suit on 6.5.2003 against which an appeal was filed which was also dismissed on 18.3.2004. Revision petition was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 29.5.2007, which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have failed to appreciate the documents placed on record while holding that Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute, which is in possession of the petitioners for more than fifty years. The impugned orders are perused with the help of the counsel for the petitioners. The question of title has been decided by the Collector after giving opportunity to the respective parties to lead their evidence. The petitioners examined Halqa Patwari to place on record the jamabandies. According to the jamabandi for the year 1945-46, petitioners were shown in possession as co-sharers in respect of the shamlat land. On the other hand, respondent-Gram Panchayat furnished affidavit of Sarpanch, who deposed that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land and it was never cultivated but was used for grazing the cattle. Even in the jamabandi produced by the petitioners for the year 1945-46, Department of Forest was shown to be in the cultivation and nature of the land was shown to be Gair Mumkin Darar. Accordingly, it could not be proved that the land was in possession of the petitioners for 12 years prior to 26.1.1950. The Commissioner had also examined all these entries in the revenue record while considering the appeal filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, it could not be proved that the land was in possession of the petitioners for 12 years prior to 26.1.1950. The Commissioner had also examined all these entries in the revenue record while considering the appeal filed by the petitioners. Land was shown as shamlat deh since 1938-39 and ownership was changed in the year 1955-56 in the name of Gram Panchayat. The land in the revenue record was shown as Gair Mumkin Pahar and in the possession of the Forest Department. The petitioners, thus, could not show that they were in cultivating possession for 12 years prior to 26.1.1950. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make good his submission that the authorities did not take into consideration the material and the revenue record which was available. Concurrent finding by all the authorities is that the land in question is recorded as shamlat deh and, thus, would be in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Nothing could be pointed out before me which would call for interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. --------------