The High Court held that the petitioner's claim regarding the allotment of a plot is of a civil nature. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with a direction to file a civil suit in the competent court.
The petitioner was directed to file a civil suit before the ordinary court of competent jurisdiction.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 18796 of 2008 Date of decision: 03.11.2008
Smt. Mohini Anand
........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. P N Malkani, Advocate for the petitioner
-.-
J.S.Khehar, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues, that the plot in question was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1983, for which she had deposited the entire consideration, but the possession of the plot in question, has never been handed over to her.
In support of the aforestated submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no authenticated material has been placed on the record of this case in order to show, that any plot was ever finally allotted to the petitioner.
In view of the fact, that the claim raised by the petitioner is of a civil nature, we consider it just and proper, to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of filing a civil suit before the ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction or any other remedy, as may be available to her.
Disposed of accordingly.
November 03, 2008 mohan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner seeking possession of an unallotted plot should proceed via writ remedy or civil suit.
Smt. Mohini Anand
State of Punjab
J.S. Khehar
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
