IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. NO. ______/2015

Bhupinder Singh. ..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab etc. ..Respondents

INDEX

S.N Particulars Date Page Court

. Fee

A Urgent Form - A

1. List of Events 1.5.2015

2. CWP under Articles 1.5.2015

226/227 of the

Constitution of India

3. Short Affidavit 1.5.2015

4. Annexure P-1 (Copy of) 2010-11

5. Annexure P-2 (Copy of) --

6. Annexure P-3 (Copy of) 29.9.11 2

7. Annexure P-4 (Copy of) 22.1.14 2

8 Annexure P-5 (Copy of) 18.12.14 1

9 Annexure P-6 (Copy of) 5.3.2015

10 Annexure P-7 (Copy of) --

11 Annexure P-8 (Copy of) --

 12 Power of Attorney 01.5.15

Total

Note:-

(i) The main law points involved in this writ petition

has been mentioned in para ___ at page ___ of the
paper book.
(ii) Relevant law and statutes: Constitution of India.

(iii) Any other case: Nil.

(iv) No Caveat has been filed in this case.

Place: Chandigarh. (S.S.Rangi & Jag Nahar Singh)

Dated: 01.05.2015 P36/94 Advocates P1767/09
Counsel for petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. NO. ________ /2015

Bhupinder Singh. ..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab etc. ..Respondents

Total Court Fee: Rs.

Place: Chandigarh: (S.S.RANGI)

Dated: 01.05.2015. ADVOCATE P/36-94

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. NO. ________ /2015

Bhupinder Singh. ..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab etc. ..Respondents

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Place: Chandigarh: (S.S.RANGI)

Dated: 01.05.2015 ADVOCATE

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. NO.__________of 2015

Shri Bhupinder Singh, Teshildar (Retired), Resident of

House No.2662, Sector 69, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) Punjab.

..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab etc. ..Respondents

Civil Writ Petition Under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India praying for the

issuance of a writ, order or direction

especially in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents to

AND/OR

For issuance of any other writ, order or

direction which this Hon’ble court may

deem fit under the facts and circumstances

of the present case.

Respectfully Showeth:

1. That, the petitioner is permanent resident of, District

S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) hence, being citizen of India, is

competent to invoke the extra ordinary writ

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India for the

vindication of his fundamental rights.

2. That,

3. That,

4. That the main questions of law involved in this

petition for kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court

are as under :-

(i) Whether the?

(ii) Whether the?

(iii) Whether the?

5. That the petitioner has been left with no other

alternative or speedy remedy except to file the

present writ petition seeking to invoke the extra

ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court under

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

6. That the petitioner has not filed any such or similar

petition either in this Hon’ble court or in the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India.

 It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue:-

(i) A writ of mandamus directing the

respondents to

(ii) For issuance of any other writ, order or

direction which this Hon’ble court may

deem fit under the Acts and circumstances

of the present case.

(iii) Entire record of this case may be

summoned in this Hon’ble Court.

(iv) To exempt the petitioner from filing

certified/typed copies of Annexures.

(v) To exempt the petitioner to serve the

advance notices to the respondents.

It is, further prayed that the cost of the writ

petition may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.

Place: Chandigarh:
Dated: 01.05.2015

Petitioner
Through counsel:

(S.S.Rangi and Jag Nahar Singh)

ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONE
Verification:
 Verified that the contents of Para No.1 to 15, para

No.17 and 18 of the above writ petition are true and

correct to my knowledge and those of para No.16 are

based on the legal advice of the Counsel, which are

believed to be true. No part of it is false and nothing

material has been kept concealed therefrom.

Place: Chandigarh:
Dated: 01.05.2015 Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. NO. ________ /2015

Bhupinder Singh. ..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab etc. ..Respondents

Affidavit of Shri Shri Bhupinder

Singh, TjS/o. Shri ________,

Resident of House No.2662, Sector

69, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) Punjab.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under:

1. That the deponent is filing the accompanying Civil

Writ Petition in this Hon’ble court and is well

conversant with the facts of the writ petition.

2. That the facts narrated in the writ petition are true

and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part

of it is false and nothing has been kept concealed

therein.
 3. That the deponent has not filed any Civil Writ

Petition in this Hon’ble court or the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India involving the same issues.

4. That there is no other alternative remedy except to

file the present writ petition.

Place: Chandigarh:

Dated: 01.05.2015 Deponent

Verification:

Verified that the contents of my above said affidavit

are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of

it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

Place: Chandigarh:

Dated: 01.05.2015 Deponent

 Annexure P-1

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

(REVENUE ESTT.I BRANCH)

REGD.

To

Shri Bhupinder Singh,

Teshildar (Retired)

House No.2662, Sector 69,

S.A.S. Nagar.

Memo No.2(1)29/07-R&E-1(6)/14733

Chandigarh, dated 11.12.2014.

Sub: J/D 146 Even after appointing as Receiver – Non

auctioning of land – action against Tehsildars – Legal

Notice regarding release of pensioners benefits.

With reference to your notice dated 21.7.2014, it is

informed that on the subject cited above, some information

has been called for from D.C. Kapurthala. On receipt of

the required information, appropriate decision will be taken

accordingly.

Sd/- Jagmohan Singh,

Supderintendent Gr.1

Regd.

Endst.No.2(1)29/07R&T1(6)/ Chandigarh Dated:

 A copy of the above is forwarded the D.C. Kapurthala

with reference to this Department letter No.2(1)/29/07-

RE1(6)/14322 dated 1.12.2014 for taking immediate action.

Sd/- Superintendent Gr.1

True Translation

Advocate.
 Annexure P-2

To

The Financial Commissioner, Punjab

Chandigarh.

Sub: Regarding charge sheet dated 16.11.2011.

Ref: Your letter No.2(1)/29/07-RE1(6)/15210 dated

16.11.2011.

Sir,

On the subject cited above and letter under reference

it is very humbly submitted that the charge sheet issued to

me is totally wrong, against the facts on the record and the

lower staff has ignored the facts of the case. So it is

submitted as under:-

1. That the undersigned remained posted as Tehsildar

Kapurthala from 13.9.14 to 20.5.2005 is true as per record.

But imposing Cr.P.C. 145 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Kapurthala in the of Sukhjit Singh etc. and thereby

appointing Tehsildar Kapurthala as receiver, is a matter of

record.

But the allegation that during my posting as

Tehsildar Kapurthala, I have not recovered the previous

amount and further have not auctioned the land, is totally

wrong because all the record of all cases remains with

Reader. As per record no case/file was ever presented to

me regarding recovery or auctioning of this land. No officer

knows personally which case is at what stage. Even during

monthly meetings conducted by D.C. Kapurthala, it was

never pointed out anywhere why this recovery is not being

made or why the land has not been auctioned. If the

undersigned had not auctioned the land, some

correspondence to this effect might have been affected by

the D.C. which has not been done. No letter was ever

received by me to this effect. So the undersigned was not

aware about the recovery/auction at all and I cannot be

held guilty or responsible for this recovery which is unjust.

With regard to the allegation in the second para that

by not auctioning the land for the crops Kharif 2004 and

Fabi, 2005, a loss of Rs.1,24,000/- has been caused to the

State, is also totally wrong and is against the facts of the

case as your office vide letter No.2(1)/29/07-RE1(6)/461

dated 12.1.2010 has specifically asked the D.C. Kapurthala

that as the land in disputed belongs to the private parties,

the income accrued there from will go to the private parties

and how the Government has suffered a loss. The Deputy

Commissioner Kapurthala vide his letter No.596/E.A. dated

17.3.2010 had accepted this fact by replying that “It is

correct that for which Tehsildar was held receiver that land

was belonging to private parties and the litigation was

between two parties. Therefore, the State Government has

not suffered any loss from the auction of this land”.

 So from the position explained above, it becomes

amply clear that even instigators of the charge sheet

agreed that no loss has been caused to the State

Government. So issuing of charge sheet blandly and

without verifying the facts of the case is totally injustice

with the undersigned. Almost two years have been passed

since my retirement, so please don’t harass me mentally by

issuing such baseless charge sheets.

So it is humbly requested that this charge sheet may

kindly be dropped and I may be given all the pensinary

benefits such as gratuity and pension etc. which have been

stopped. I shall be grateful to you.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- Bhupinder Singh.

True Translation

Advocate.
 Annexure P-3.

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & REHABLITATION

(REVENUE ESTT.-I BRANCH)

No. No.2(1)/29/07-RE1(6)/15210 dated 16.11.2011

REMIDNER LETTER

Vide this reminder letter it is informed to Shri

Bhupinder Singh, Tehsildar (Retd.) that under Punjab Civil

Services Volume-II Rule 2.2 B, read with Section 8 of

Punjab Government Services (Punishment & Appeal Rules

1970, action is proposed against him on the basis of

charge sheet attached.

2. Shri Bhupinder, Tehsildar (Retd.) is informed that

reply to this charge sheet be submitted within 21 days from

the receipt of this letter. He should clearly mention

whether he accepts all or any of the allegations leveled

against him what ever he wants to say. He should say so

in writing. If he wants to meet the undersigned personally

then he should also inform to this office.

3. Shri Bhupinder Singh, Tehsildar (Retd.) is also

informed that in preparing his written reply if he wants to

see any relevant record, he may go to the office of the

D.C. Kapurthala on any working day. He will be shown

only that documents which are relating to this case and are
available in that office. If according to the Government,

showing of any record is not in the public interest, he will

be refused to show that document. If he wants to see more

record which is not available in the office, he can see that

by his personal efforts. It his reply is not received within

the stipulated period due to non-examining of record or his

inability to visit that office, shall be no valid reason.

4. It no reply is received within the stipulated period

then it will be presumed that he has nothing to say.

5. The written reply be sent directly to the undersigned.

6. The acknowledgement of this letter alongwith its

enclosures, be sent.

Sd/- Secretary to Govt. Punjab

Department of Revenue & Rehabilitation.

REGD.

Shri Bhupinder Singh,

Tehsildar (Retd.),

House No.2662, Sector 69.

Mohali.

True Translation

Advocate.
 Annexure P-4.

Charges Sheet against Shri Bhupinder Singh, Ex. Tehsildar

Kapurthala.

During the tenure from 13.9.2004 to 20.5.2005 of this

officer as Tehsildar Kapurthala, S.D.M. Kapurthala vide his

order dated 30.8.2000 in case titled Sukhjit Singh S/o.

Sarup Singh 2)Sarup Singh S/o. Harbans Singh residents

of Village Kanjli, Tehsil and Distt. Kapurthala Versus Surjit

Singh S/o. Baldev Singh S/o. Sulakhan Singh, Resident of

House No.556, Mohalla Kasaban, Kapurthala (2)Teresem

Singh S/o. Shri Mohidner Singh Resident of Village Kanjli,

complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and under section 146

have pointed you as Receiver Auction of the disputed land

for the Crob Rabi 2003 for Rs.62100/- in favour of Gurdeep

Singh S/o. Piara Singh R/o. Bhilla was done by K.P.S.

Mahi, Ex.Tehsildar Kapurthala on 7.11.2002. After this, as

long as you remained Tehsildar Kapurthala you have not

realized this amount and nor you have put this land to

auction for the coming crops. During this period two crops

kharif 2004 and Rabi 2005 were due. By not auctioning

this land you have caused loss to the State.

2. Acting upon the complaint of Sarup Singh S/o.Balwant

Singh, Smt.Bhawna Garg, I.A.S., Ex. Additional Deputy

Commission, Kapurthala conducted an inquiry. She has

written that after the above auction no further auction has

been conducted. So the amount of this period on the basis

of last auction of Rs.62,100/- per crop was to be realized.

You have not put to action this land for Kharif 2004 and

Rabi 2005. In this way you have caused a loss of

Rs.1,24,200/- to the State Government.

Sd/- (A.R. Talwar)

Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab.

True Translation

Advocate.
 Annexure P-5.

Detail of allegations against Shri Bhupinder Singh, Ex.

Tehsildar, Kapurthala.

When this office was posted as Tehsildar Kapurthala,

from 13.1.2004 to 20.5.2005, the S.D.M. Kapurthala vide

his order dated 30.8.2000 in case titled Sukhjit Singh S/o.

Sarup Singh 2)Sarup Singh S/o. Harbans Singh residents

of Village Kanjli, Tehsil and Distt. Kapurthala Versus Surjit

Singh S/o. Baldev Singh S/o. Sulakhan Singh, Resident of

House No.556, Mohalla Kasaban, Kapurthala (2)Teresem

Singh S/o. Shri Mohidner Singh Resident of Village Kanjli,

on the complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and under

section 146 had pointed you as Receiver Auction. The

Ex.Tehsildar Kapurthala Shri K.P.S. Mahi had auctioned

the disputed land on 7.11.2002 for the Crob Rabi 2003 for

Rs.62100/- in favour of Gurdeep Singh S/o. Piara Singh

R/o. Bhilla. There after this, as long as you remained

Tehsildar Kapurthala you have not realized this amount

and nor you have put this land to auction for the coming

crops. During this period two crops kharif 2004 and Rabi

2005 were due. By not auctioning this land you have

caused loss to the State.

2. Acting upon the complaint of Sarup Singh S/o.Balwant

Singh, Smt.Bhawna Garg, I.A.S., Ex. Additional Deputy

Commission, Kapurthala conducted an inquiry. She has

written that after the above auction no further auction has

been conducted. So the amount of this period on the basis

of last auction of Rs.62,100/- per crop was to realized.

You have not put to action this land for Kharif 2004 and

Rabi 2005. In this way you have caused a loss of

Rs.1,24,200/- to State Government.

By doing so, you have shown great negligence and

carelessness towards your duty and have made responsible

yourself for punishment under Punjab Civil Services

(Punishment & Appeal), Rules 1970.

Sd/- (A.R. Talwar)

Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab.

True Translation

Advocate.
 Annexure P-6.

List of witnesses against Shri Bhupinder Singh, Ex.

Tehsildar, Kapurthala.

1. Reader to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kapurthala.

2. Reader to Tehsildar, Kapurthala.

3. Concerned officer/employee of the office of Deputy

Commissioner, Kapurthala.

Sd/- (A.R. Talwar)

Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab.

True Translation

Advocate.
 Annexure P-7.

OFFICE OF THE S.D.M. KAPURTHALA.

To

Deputy Commissioner,
Kapurthala.

No.329/Reader Dated: 6.6.13

Sub: Action regarding appointment of Receiver Under

Section 146 by the S.D.M. Kapurthala against Shri
Arvind Parkash Tehsildar, Shri Bhupinder Singh,
Tehsildar (Retd.) and Shri Manjit Singh, Tehsildar.

Ref: Your Endst.No.735/E.A. dated 14.3.2012 on the

above subject.

On the subject cited above and letter under

reference, it is requested that no reply has been received

from the Tehsildar Manjit Singh and the rest information is

as under:-

Comments on the reply submitted by Shri Bhupinder Singh

Tehsildar (Retd.) (13.9.2004 to 20.5.2005)
As per office record received from Tehsil office

Kapurthala there is no such note on the record which may

show any order has been passed regarding depositing of

auction money or for conducting any auction as well as

regarding putting up of file to the Tehsildar. As this land

belongs to private owners, the Govt. has suffered no loss.

Office agrees with the reply dated 21.12.2011 submitted by

Bhupinder Singh.

Comments on the reply submitted by Shri Arvind Paraksh

Tehsildar (18.6.2001 to 7.5.2002)
On the reply submitted by Tehsildar Arvind Parkash,

it is submitted that as per record received from Tehsil

office Kapurthala Shri Arvind Parkash Tehsildar after

auctioning the crop on 23.1.2000 had deposited the auction

money in the Govt. Treasury under head Amount amounting

to Rs.9569/- photo copy of challan dated 18.7.2001 is

attached. After this vide letter No.4400/Reader dated

5.10.2001 (copy attached) notices were issued to auction

the land. Auction was accepted on 15.10.2001 for auction

of this land for the year 2001-2002. It has been submitted

on page 2 last para in the reply by this office “During my

posting the District & Sessions Judge has stayed the order

od S.DM.M. Dated 20.8.2000 and this stay continued till I

remained posted there. So, due to this, no action was

taken on the orders of S.D.M. dated 22.8.2000. Copies of

the orders dated 12.9.2000 and 1.9.2003 are attached

herewith. This office does not agreed with this reply as it

is found not satisfactory. It causes doubts.

So reply is submitted.

Sd/- S.D.M.

Kapurthala.

Encl. as above.

True Translation

Advocate.