Poshak Agrivet Private Limited and Another vs State of Haryana and Others

K. Kannan, J.

CM Nos. 6171-6172 of 2013

Exemption granted, as sought for. Documents Annexures A11 to A16 are taken on record.

Applications stand disposed of.

CM No. 6946 of 2012

Through the judgment delivered by this Court on 18.10.2011, this Court has found the State action through police allowing for the property admittedly leased out to the petitioner-Company to be wrested by the landlords, who were respondents 6 and 7, to be improper. The Court had directed the police to provide appropriate protection for the re-entry into the property which was leased out to the Company. Subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition, a prayer for clarification of the order was sought at the instance of the 5th respondent where it had been observed that under the guise of the order made by this Court, the petitioners were seeking to assert claims for larger areas as having been in their possession and that the Court should specifically detail the areas to which protection was to be given. This Court had therefore clarified that the prohibition against respondents 6 and 7 from causing any disturbance to re-entry into possession shall be taken as in respect of the portion which was leased out to the Company and in respect of which the Company had been wrongfully dispossessed with the help of the police.

The application has been filed by the petitioners contending that the 6th respondent had produced a forged and tampered copy of the site plan along with CM No. 14589 of 2011. The plan which was submitted was a lay out for the Company situate within the specified boundaries. The allegation was that in the document filed along with the application it was made to appear as though that four different entities existed within the boundaries, namely, Tej Cable, Indian Fodder Care & Technologies Private Limited, the petitioner-Company and the portion retained by the landlords. Each one of the four persons was shown to be in specific areas by adopting different colouring in the lay out plan submitted before the Court. The petitioners would rely on a document filed as Annexure P4 which is the lay out plan submitted and approved by the District Town Planner, Karnal which, according to the petitioners, did not contain the specific demarcation in the manner provided by the 6th respondent in his application. The grievance is that the 6th respondent had manipulated with the copy of the official record and made it appear as though it was the true copy of the plan submitted and approved by the District Town Planner, Karnal. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the petitioners to state that the copy of the plan furnished by the 6th respondent did not depict the true state of affairs and it had also included portions of property which were actually in the possession of the petitioners at the relevant time when they filed the writ petition and the portions of property which had been forcibly entered by the 6th respondent and the Company managed by them. A private dispute regarding the assertion of title to the immovable property cannot be settled in a writ petition. A writ shall lie only against a public authority and private individuals in so far as actions of public authorities will have to be examined and corrected for preservation of rights established in the case. I do not find in the plan submitted by the 6th respondent that there is any assertion made that it was an approved lay out. On the other hand, it merely attests a graphic illustration of what the 6th respondent canvassed as the property in his possession. I have not in my order made any attempt to demarcate what is the extent of property which actually the petitioner was in possession of. On the other hand, I have merely confined myself to an admitted situation of what is surely referable to documents that the petitioners shall be entitled to protection of the property leased out to the petitioner-Company. Any other property which the petitioners may have in their possession by any contemporaneous arrangement or through any independent transaction were not the subject of investigation by this Court. Indeed, it will be inappropriate for this Court to deal with any issue of fact which is disputed. I have limited my order only to the grant of protection to the petitioner for the property which was leased out and allowed for the petitioners to re-enter with reference to such property and called to aid either the police or for specific directions from this Court. If police protection was not forthcoming, I cannot dilate the effect of the order to an adjudication of what were all the various portions of property which the petitioner was in possession of. I do not find that there was any attempt to fabricate document to mislead this Court. I will not therefore find any need allowing for any further proceeding to be initiated u/s 340 Cr.P.C. The ground for sanction as sought for simply does not exist. The application is, consequently, dismissed.