Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 868 (HP)

SUNITA v. STATE OF HP

2013-10-04

RAJIV SHARMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. PETITIONER has prayed mainly for following reliefs: "i). That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the impugned order as contained in Annexure P 2 and P 3. ii). That a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to allow the petition to complete her normal tenure as ward member of Municipal Council Sunder Nagar." 2. ANNEXURE P 2 is the order dated 27.12.2011 passed by the Authorised Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., which stands affirmed vide order dated 11.9.2012 (Annexure P 3) passed by the appellate authority i.e Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Election Appeal No. 1 of 2012 titled as Sunita versus Indira Devi. For the post of Ward Member (Ward No. 11) Purana Bazar, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., petitioner (Sunita Devi) contested election and was elected. Assailing the same, private respondent (Indira Devi) filed an election petition, inter alia on the ground that family members of present petitioner had encroached upon the government/municipal land and as such petitioner entailed dis qualification in terms of Section 16(1)(c) of the HP Municipal Act, 1994. 3. THE authorities below have found family members of the petitioner to have encroached upon government land. Undisputedly, order for ejectment stands passed against family members of the petitioner, including her husband. 4. ORDER dated 23.6.2011 directing the petitioner's husband to remove the encroachment is placed on record as Annexure R 3/A. Significantly in these proceedings petitioner's husband and other family members took a plea that their possession over the suit land is adverse and hostile to that of the true owner i.e the State. Under these circumstances, the present petition only merits rejection. An encroacher cannot be allowed to continue and discharge public function 5. WE do not find any infirmity, error or perversity in the orders passed by the authorities below and as such, the present petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 27.11.2012 stands vacated. 6. ALL pending application(s), if any, stand dismissed accordingly.