RATTAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner Faridabad, thereby directing the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, to take over the possession, control and management of the tubewell of the petitioners, which is claimed to have been installed in their own land. Thus, the short issue involved in the present case, is whether the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue directions to the Municipal authorities to take over the possession, control and management of the tubewell of the petitioners.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statements were filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order was without jurisdiction on the face of it, besides being arbitrary in nature. He further submits that even the basic principles of natural justice have been glaringly violated by the Deputy Commissioner, while passing the impugned order. He next contended that once the ownership and possession of the petitioners qua the tubewell in question has been duly established, as per the demarcation report of the Tehsildar, the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to take over the possession, control and management of the tubewell of the petitioners. It was nothing but highhandedness on the part of the District Administration, because of which the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.