24 years on, HC junks plea for border fence removal

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 16

For 24 years, a petition seeking removal of barbed wire fencing along the Indo-Pakistan border area in Punjab remained pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. When it finally came up for hearing this month, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, leading to its dismissal.

The delay in the matter may sound exceptional, but is not extraordinary. National Judicial Data Grid figures reveal that the High Court, as of now, has 5,59,615 cases and 29 appointments of judges pending. It is suspected that many petitioners are no more there to pursue their grievances. When some of these cases are suddenly listed, the counsels are often at a loss in the absence of complete records or instructions.

Even though the High Court has been making efforts to bring down the pendency, the number of old cases has been piling up progressively; and with the shortage of judges, the piles are unlikely to shrink easily. The High Court, as of now, has 56 judges against the sanctioned strength of 85. The situation is expected to worsen in the coming months with four judges scheduled to retire.

The matter was brought under the judicial scanner with the filing of a petition by Sampuran Singh and other petitioners against the Union of India and other respondents. The petitioners, as an alternative, were seeking directions to acquire their agricultural land falling in the area of barbed wire and the line of actual control. The petitioners had added that they had the right to enjoy their properties effectively, being citizens of India. But the same was not possible in the present circumstances.

When the petition eventually came up for hearing before Justice Lisa Gill, the Bench observed the matter was directed to be heard along with another petition of 1996, which was dismissed in August 2011. The petition, along with yet another matter, was decided by a common order, but the present petition was somehow not listed along with it. Justice Gill observed the prayers were similar in both petitions. In the third petition, the petitioner was aggrieved due to requirement of identity cards in the border area.

“None had appeared on behalf of the petitioners on the last date of hearing. Today again, there is no representation on their behalf. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the matter any longer and no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings in the present petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed… In case of any subsisting grievance, needless to say, the petitioners are at liberty to move an appropriate application within two months,” Justice Gill concluded.

PETITIONERS LIST REASONS

• The petitioners seek to acquire their agricultural land falling in the area of barbed wire and the Line of Actual Control
• They said they had the right to enjoy their properties effectively, being citizens of India. However, the same was not possible in the present circumstances
• In the third petition, the petitioner was aggrieved due to requirement of identity cards in the border area