DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION KURUKSHETRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of ours shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 13440, 13769, 13784, 13786 of 1989, 6174 of 1992 and lists of 1995 as the basic question of law involved in these petitions is common. In order to appreciate the question involved wherein it is necessary for us to give some facts.

(2.) Vide notification Annexure P-4, the Government of Haryana varied the limits of the area of Kurushetra district so as to exclude the areas comprising Kaithal and Guhla Sub-Divisions and Radaur Sub-Tehsil therefrom with effect from 1- 11-1989 in pursuance -of Section 3 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and Section 5 of the Registration Act, 1908. On the same day, i.e. October 16, 1989 another notification was issued altering the limits of Kurukshetra and Jind district in order to form a new district Kaithal which comprised of Kaithal and Guhla Sub-Divisions of Kurukshetra district Kalayat Sub-Tehsil and six revenues estates of Jind district as mentioned in the schedule given in the notification, Annexure P-5, w.e.f. 1-11-1989. The District Bar Association, Kurukshetra through its President, the Kurukshetra Sangharash Samiti through its Convenor and the President, District Bar Association, Kurukshetra challenged the notification Annexures P-4 and P-5 by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No. 13440 of 1989 on several grounds. It has been stated in the petition that the State of Haryana came into existence on 1-11-1966 in pursuance of the enactment of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and that the original districts were reorganised and new districts were carved out in the year 1973 when Kurukshetra district came into existence for the first time. The total area and population has also been stated in the petition. It has been averred that the State has not been able to provide accommodation for the offices of Deputy Commissioner, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and most other officers at the district level and that the judicial complex meant for the Courts was being used by the Deputy Commissioner and S.D.M. etc. A Committee according to the petitioners set up by the State consisting of four Ministers recommended not to create new district and not to reorganise the existing ones. With reference to paragraph 834 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual compiled by Sir James Douie, it was so stated in the petition that the creation of new districts should be taken and done only if the same is necessary. The case of the petitioners further is that the notifications have been issued creating as many as four districts i.e. Kaithal, Panipat, Yamunanagar and Rewari (sic) while keeping political gains in mind.

(3.) The creation of Panipat district has been challenged by the District Bar Association, Kamal and others in Civil Writ Petition No. 13784 of 1989 (sic) like grounds as have been mentioned above.