Remanded

Bahadur Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2008CWP/7785/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Collector failed to decide the framed issues during adjudication under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter for reconsideration to the Collector.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to Collector for reconsideration and disposal of issues by 30.4.2009.

Bahadur Singh etc. Vs State of Pb. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

C.W.P No.7785 of 2005

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

¶4

C.W.P No.7785 of 2005

¶5

Date of Decision: 04.12.2008

¶6

Bahadur Singh and others

¶7

....Petitioners.

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

....Respondents.

¶11

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶12

Present: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State.

¶14

Mr. R.K. Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶15

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that although, issues were framed by the Collector, Kapurthala, during the course of the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Village Common Lands Act) and the parties led their respective evidence keeping in view the issues framed, yet while adjudicating upon the matter, neither the Collector, Kapurthala, nor the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the

¶17

C.W.P No.7785 of 2005

¶18

¶19

provisions of the Village Common Lands Act, decided the issues as had been framed by the Collector, Kapurthala. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 very fairly acknowledges the factual position asserted at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners. He also very fairly states, that he has no objection, if the matter is remanded so as to be decided in accordance with law, namely, a finding is recorded at the hands of the relevant authorities issue wise.

¶20

In view of the above, we set aside the orders dated 31.10.2003 (Annexure P-8) and 30.3.2005 (Annexure P-10) and remand the matter for reconsideration to the Collector, Kapurthala. The rival parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Kapurthala, on 7.1.2009.

¶21

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the Collector, Kapurthala, to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, but in any case, before 30.4.2009.

¶22

Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

( J.S. Khehar ) Judge

¶24

( Nirmaljit Kaur ) Judge.

¶25

04.12.2008 sk.

Bahadur Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahadur Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Massa Singh and Anr. Vs Financial Commissioner Appeals-I & Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Fin. Commiss. of Hry. & Anr.

Darshan Singh Vs Fin. Commi. & Ors.

Sher Mohd. and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Joginder Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Pb. Chd & Ors.

Harbans Singh etc. Vs Director Rural Development and Panch. etc.