Gurjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

CWP No. 34091 of 2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 34091-2025(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 Gurjit Singh ....Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to take action on his complaints.

2.

As per petitioner, he has filed a spate of complaints but no action has been taken. There is property dispute between petitioner and one lady namely Savinder Kaur. As per petitioner, his father mortgaged 2 Kanal land to Savinder Kaur. The said mortgage was subsequently cancelled and his father started cultivating the land. Savinder Kaur wanted to grab said land. On petitioner's father's request, demarcation of land took place and petitioner's father started cultivating the land. The matter came up before Dasuya Court which dismissed Savinder Kaur's case for restoration of possession. Girdawar Balwar Singh started digging a borewell on the

CWP No. 34091 of 2025 -2subjected land. The petitioner made complaints and representations to higher authorities including Vigilance Bureau. The Joint Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab asked Director General of Police to take action on petitioner's complaint. Respondent No.3-DSP, Dasuya inquired the matter. The petitioner submitted before DSP that inquiry be conducted by Vigilance Department. Getting no response, he preferred CWP No.10294 of 2024 which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh with better particulars. He again filed CWP No.24513 of 2024 which was withdrawn. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, who on advance notice is present in Court, accepts notice.

5.

With the consent of both sides, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

6.

As per reply dated 03.03.2026, the petitioner has refused to participate in the inquiry to be conducted by DSP. He wants inquiry by Vigilance Bureau.

7.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that it is a pure civil dispute between petitioner and Savinder Kaur. The jurisdictional police authorities have expressed their helplessness to inquire the matter because petitioner claims that matter should be enquired only by Vigilance Bureau. 8.

This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot appoint one particular agency especially when jurisdictional police authorities are ready to enquire the matter and it is a purely civil dispute. 9.

Disposed of. The Court is sanguine that if matter is pending before Vigilance Bureau, it would proceed in accordance with law.

CWP No. 34091 of 2025 -310.

Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

11.

Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 27.03.2026 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No