Naveen Gautam And Others v. State Of U T Chandigarh And Others

CWP No.3968 of 2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3968 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.23.05.2017 Naveen Gautam and others ........Petitioners Vs State of U.T., Chandigarh and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Tarun Walia, Advoacate for respondent No.1 and 2.

Ms. Suman Devi, Advocate for Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL) With the consent of the parties, hearing of the case is preponed for today itself.

The question raised in the writ petition is with regard to the illegal encroachment which has been specifically denied by the Chandigarh Administration and as well as the private respondents. Today, an application is also listed for appointment of the local commissioner. All these points are disputed question of fact, particularly, when the petitioner is alleging to be the neighbour of the private respondent. It is totally a private dispute. The petitioner is at liberty to seek adjudication by filing civil suit, as it is disputed question of fact and cannot be adjudicated under Article 226.

Even the application for appointment of the local commissioner PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.05.26 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.3968 of 2016 (O&M) -2is not sustainable, as the report of the local commissioner is required to be proved in accordance with law, that would be only within the realm and domain of the Civil Court.

In view of the aforementioned fact, this controversy cannot be decided in writ court. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 23, 2017 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.05.26 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document