Disposed

Kirpa Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2010CWP/1602/1986

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of orders cancelling land transfer. Court, noting prior judgments required notice to petitioners before cancellation valid, disposed of petition by directing Settlement Officer to issue notice and serve grounds as required by law.

What did the court decide?

Settlement Officer directed to issue notice to petitioners and serve grounds for cancellation before further steps.

Kirpa Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.W.P. No.1602 of 1986

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

C.W.P. No.1602 of 1986 Date of decision : 13.7.2010

¶6

Kirpa Ram and others

¶7

-----Petitioners Vs.

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

-----Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

¶11

Present:- None for the petitioner

¶12

Ms.Ritu Bahri, Senior DAG, Haryana

¶13

ORDER:-

¶14

This petition seeks quashing of orders Annexures P 4 and P 6 dated 3.4.1974 and 10.5.1982 respectively.

¶15

Vide order dated 3.4.1974 transfer of land in favour of the petitioners was set aside and vide order dated 10.5.1982, Annexure P6, eight cases were disposed of remanding the matter to the Tehsildar (Sales) to consider the issue of transfer of land in favour of the petitioners on prevailing rates. Grievance in the writ petition is that transfer of land in favour of the petitioners, who had improved the land by their labour in their capacity as lesssees under the provisions of East Punjab Utilisation of Land Act, 1954, was valid and in accordance with the instructions of the Government dated 20.11.1970, Annexure P 1 but thereafter, the said transfer was cancelled without any notice to the petitioners.

¶16

C.W.P. No.1602 of 1986

¶17

-2-

¶18

In the reply, stand taken on behalf of the State is that against the impugned order, Annexure P 6, other writ petitions are pending in this Court and the respondents will take decision in the light of the order passed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State points out that during pendency of this petition, CWP No.4457 of 1984 and CWP No.4087 of 1984, arising out of the common order, Annexure P 6, have been disposed of on 30.11.2005 and 18.1.2006 respectively, holding that order should have been passed after giving hearing to the petitioner. The matter was accordingly remanded to the Settlement Officer requiring grounds for cancellation to be served on the petitioners and thereafter, objections of the petitioners being decided in accordance with law.

¶20

In view of above, this petition is disposed of in the same terms. Since none appear on behalf of the petitioners, the Settlement Officer-Respondent No.4 is directed to take further steps after issuing notice to the petitioners, in accordance with law.

¶21

The petition is disposed of.

¶22

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE

¶23

13^th July, 2010 akm

Kirpa Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirpa Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

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

Daljeet Singh and Anr. Vs the Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla and Ors.

Shankar and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat Sisana and Ors.

Kartar Singh Vs Chand Singh etc.

Yoginder Pal Vs State of Hry. & Ors.

Girdhari and Ors. Vs State of Hry Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs Punjab State Coop. Supply and Mktg Fed Ltd.