Petitioner sought to withdraw a writ petition regarding bhumidhari rights proceedings pending before SDM Najafgarh. Court allowed withdrawal and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHARAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.S.Gulia, Advocate with Petitioner in person.
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS ….. Respondents Through: Ms.Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for R-1 to R-3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 11.03.2019
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner has already initiated proceedings for declaration of bhumidhari rights and the said proceedings are pending before SDM (Najafgarh). The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes to that effect.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
MARCH 11, 2019/dm
Charan Singh
Deputy Commissioner and Ors
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
