Judgment
LPA No.1969 of 2012(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1969 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:
29. 11.2012 Kulwant Singh and another ....Appellants VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.L.N.Verma, Advocate, for the appellants.
******* RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The appellants pray that order dated 19.09.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing their writ petition, may be set aside.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the mere fact that their counsel was unable to inform the Court that appellants have handed over vacant possession of the land to the respondents, should not have been a ground to dismiss the writ petition.
It is contended that as counsel was unable to obtain instructions, the learned Single Judge should have granted another opportunity to the appellants to make a statement regarding possession of the land.
It is further contended that as penalty imposed was clearly illegal, having been imposed for a period of more than three yeaRs.the writ petition should not have been dismissed.
We have heard counsel for the appellants, perused the LPA No.1969 of 2012(O&M) -2- impugned order and find no reason to entertain the appeal.
The appellants filed a writ petition to challenge orders of ejectment as well as imposition of penalty passed under sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973.
Notice was issued, limited to the plea relating to validity of the penalty.
The order dated 21.12.2010, passed in CWP No.22800 of 2010, reads as follows: - “After addressing arguments for some time, counsel for the petitioners gives up challenge to the orders of ejectment but states that penalty has been imposed without holding an enquiry as to the benefit derived by the petitioners and that penalty cannot be imposed beyond the period of three yeaRs.Notice of motion for 28.01.2011 limited to the aforementioned arguments.”
It is, therefore, apparent that challenge to ejectment orders was given up and a limited notice was issued with respect to legality of the penalty.
The appellants were called upon to apprise the Court whether they have given up possession.
Counsel for the appellants was asked, during arguments, in the appeal, whether appellants had given up possession.
It appears from the vacillating response of counsel for the appellants that the appellants have not given up possession despite orders of ejectment dated 29.08.2003 and 11.10.2006.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers a discretionary and equitable jurisdiction and facts, so permitting, particularly where a party seeks to perpetuate its illegal possession, jurisdiction may not be exercised.
We find no reason to entertain the LPA No.1969 of 2012(O&M) -3- appeal or to hold that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge suffers from any error of jurisdiction as would require interference.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed.
[ RAJIVE BHALLA ].JUDGE 29 11.2012 [ REKHA MITTAL ].shamsher JUDGE