Sarda Ram v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CWP No.793 of 2012 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.793 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision.24.04.2017 Sarda Ram and others ........Petitioners Vs State of Haryana and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajbir Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ranjeet Saini, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL) The issue involved in the present writ petition is that whether in an application seeking permission of the authorities to deposit the rent of subsequent period, during the pendency of the proceedings, arising out of ejectment order passed way back in the year 1992, can be called upon to deposit the mesne profits or not.

Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that in pursuance of the ejectment application filed in Form 'L', the petitioner was ordered to be ejected in 1992. The matter reached upto this Court in CWP No.2630 of 1995 and other connected cases and this Court while issuing notice of motion order had stayed the dispossession. The petitioner in order to show the bona fide, moved an application for deposit of rent which, ultimately, had been allowed. However, the matter reached to the Financial Commissioner and Financial Commissioner ordered for depositing the mesne profits. PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.04.27 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.793 of 2012 (O&M) -2The contention of Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order of mesne profits could only be passed on the application of the landlord in the pending writ and not in the manner and mode as has been done.

Mr. Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits that writ petitions have already been dismissed and the ejectment order had been complied with, in essence, the possession had been taken and relied upon the parameteria of the judgment rendered in connected cases that the landlord is entitled to mesne profits. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that since the land in dispute is banjar land and possession had been handed over, I do not deem it appropriate to decide the question but keep the aforementioned question open and under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order of granting mesne profits is held to be not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. This order of mine shall not be construed as a precedent. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE April 24, 2017 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.04.27 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document