CWP No.9068 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.9068 of 2013 Date of Decision:
30. 04.2013 ***** Ranbir Singh and others .
.Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .
.
Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction to the respondents to maintain and preserve the “Ghata Dam”.
which is providing ground water recharge and is a source of water for the villagers around it which is sought to be destroyed by issuing licences to the colonizeRs.who have been permitted to raise construction in and around the said area.
During the couRs.of hearing, it is admitted by counsel for the petitioners that the land in dispute has been purchased by the private respondents and he could not divulge the information to the Court as to whether the said land was reserved for common purposes or was owned by the proprietors because if it had been a Shamlat land meant for common purposes then perhaps it could not have CWP No.9068 of 2013 -2- been sold but if it belongs to the proprietORS.it can always be sold by them.
Since nothing has been brought on record by the petitioners in this regard and admittedly the land has been purchased by the private respondents, they cannot be injuncted for raising construction on their own land specially when the construction is being raised after obtaining necessary licences, in accordance with law.
Moreover, no objection was ever raised by the petitioners when the licence(s) were issued to the private respondents and if it is alleged that the land in dispute is the part of National Capital Region, the petitioners can always raise their grievance before the National Capital Region Planning Board in terms of National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985.
We, thus, are not inclined to interfere in this petition much less in this public interest litigation and hence the same is hereby dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 30 04.2013 Vivek