Dua, J. - (1.) IN this case return has not yet been filed though the Advocate -General accepted notice at the time of admission on 3rd May, 1963 when stay was refused but the petition was expressly directed to be heard immediately alter the vacation. Shri Anand Swarup states -and it is not disputed on behalf of the respondent -that a number of cases of similar nature are pending in this Court and the point is of some importance. He has submitted that the Full Bench decision does not cover the point which arises in these cases. This, however, is controverted on behalf of the respondent. In my opinion, the point calling for determination is of importance and since it affects several cases it is desirable that the matter should be disposed of by a larger Bench. In the meantime the respondent is directed to file the return within two weeks failing which the matter may be disposed of without the return.
(2.) THE papers may, therefore, be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for necessary orders. As the matter is of considerable urgency. ORDER Harbans Singh, J. (3rd December, 1963) This writ petition, which has come before us on being referred by my learned brother Dua J., arises in the following circumstances. Sometime before 1958, the petitioner Satya Dev, who is a resident of Mahm in District Rohtak, constructed some steps and a sloping culvert called Ghau Ghat, in front of the main gate of his house. The Municipal Committee, Mahm served a notice in the year 1958 railing upon him to demolish the Ghau Ghat as well as the steps etc. on both sides, i.e., the eastern and western, of the municipal drain. The petitioner filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the municipal committee from demolishing the above -mentioned structure, which suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 19th of March, 1959. Against this decree, an appeal was filed and before the lower appellate Court, the petitioner gave up his claim to maintain the structure on the eastern side of the municipal drain and with regard to the structure on the western side of the municipal drain the appeal was accepted and the injunction prayed for issued on 24th of August, 1959. An appeal against this order was filed by the municipal committee which is still pending in the High Court.
(3.) ON 21st of January, 1961, the petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Committee Mahm, and he took oath of his office on 24th of February, 1962. A notice was served by the municipal committee on the petitioner to remove the encroachment on the eastern side about which the petitioner had himself given up the claim. Meanwhile it appears that inasmuch as the structures on the eastern side over the municipal drain were necessary for the reasonable user of the petitioner's, property on the matter being referred to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, who was incharge of the Municipal Committee, Mahm, it is stated, he made a recommendation that those structures be either sold to the petitioner or be leased out to him on teh bazari. Before this matter could be decided, on 10th of September, 1962, the Punjab Government served a notice on the petitioner purporting to be one under the proviso to section 16(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the membership of the Municipal Committee, Mahm. The cause was shown by the petitioner and, inter alia, he stated as follows : So far as the eastern side of the municipal drain is concerned, I had given up my claim on it and it has not been demolished to keep the status quo as the appeal is pending in the High Court. However, I undertake to demolish it, if the Government is pleased to direct in that way. This was only to maintain the present position of the site for the proper appreciation of the facts by the Hon'ble High Court.;