DILA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of mandamus, is directed, against the Union of India and the District Medical Officer of Health, Mandi District. The petition is founded on the following allegations :

(2.) The petitioner was in peaceful, actual and physical possession of land, measuring 2-10-17 bighas, comprised in khasra No. 2, situated in village Raghunath Bag, Tehsil Mandi. In the last week of the month of December, 1962, a Government contractor, under the orders, instructions and authority of the respondents, had come on the aforesaid land, and had, in spite of the petitioner's protests, commenced laying the foundations of a building and had destroyed the Rabi crop, sown by the petitioner. This act of the contractor resulted in the illegal and forcible dispossession of the petitioner, from the land. The petitioner served a notice, under Section 80, C. P. C., on the respondents, on the 3rd January, 1963, demanding restoration of possession of the land, and compensation, but the notice went unheeded. Hence the petitioner has filed the present petition, for the issue of a writ of mandamus, for the restoration of possession of the land, after the removal of the structures, built thereupon.

(3.) The petition is contested by the respondents. It is denied that the petitioner was ever in lawful possession of the land, in dispute. It is pleaded that the possession of the land, which belongs to Government, was transferred in favour of the Medical Department, and that the petitioner had, voluntarily, given up, even his unlawful possession on the 17th January, 1959. It is, further, pleaded that a building had been constructed on the land, after the petitioner had voluntarily given up possession and that he was estopped from claiming back possession and the demolition of the building. A preliminary objection, against the maintainability of the petition, has also been taken up, on behalf of the respondents. It is pleaded that disputed questions of fact are involved in the petition, and that such questions cannot be decided in a summary proceeding, like the present petition, and that the petitioner should seek his remedy, about the alleged infringement of his right, by filing a regular suit.