RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners on account of undue harassment caused by respondent No. 8-Gram Panchayat as well as other respondents and for taking action against the respondents, who are alleged to be in the process of demolishing the houses of the petitioners without any notice or procedure.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son, respectively. Petitioner No. 1 is having one more son, namely Amit, who is involved in case arising out of FIR No. 386 dtd. 14/5/2022, registered under Ss. 15, 17 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station City Sirsa, wherein the main accused is Amandeep Singh. The trial in the said case is going on. Amit had been granted concession of anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case. He is involved in one more case bearing FIR No. 299 dtd. 15/9/2022, registered under Sec. 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, wherein also, he had been granted concession of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that SHO of the Police Station Nathusari Chopta had written to the Gram Panchayat, Rampura Bagrian about the status of Amit and his properties, to which, a false report had been given by the Gram Panchayat mentioning the house of the petitioner No. 1 as the house of his son Amit, whereas, as per family ID, the address of the house of Amit is H. No. 110, Village Rampura Bagrian. Learned counsel has submitted that son of petitioner No. 1 is not associated in any type of the property of the petitioners and rather, he is residing in an agricultural land, which is part of Khsara No. 10/1 of Khewat No. 167//140 min Khatoni No. 201. Even petitioner No. 1 had disowned him by giving a declaration to this effect in the newspaper. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the houses of the petitioners shall be demolished in an illegal manner and they can also be implicated in some false case. It is, thus, urged that appropriate directions be issued to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners and their properties at the hands of respondent No.8-Gram Panchayat and not to implicate them in any false case.

(3.) Reply, on behalf of respondents No. 1, 4 and 7, has been filed. A separate reply by way of affidavit of respondent No. 6-Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nathusari Chopta has also been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2, 5, 6 and 8. A joint perusal of both the replies reveals that the allegations as levelled by the petitioners have been denied by respondents No. 1, 4, 7 and it is submitted that the petitioners have not been harassed or humiliated at all by the police at any point of time. It is also submitted that above named Amit had been involved in sale and purchase of narcotic substance and two cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against him. In order to ascertain whether aforesaid Amit had acquired any property illegally, respondent No. 7, well within his rights, had moved an application to respondent No. 6-Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nathusari Chopta in this regard and in response to that same, it was communicated that Amit had constructed his house by encroaching upon the Panchayat land.