Dismissed

Rajinder Singh Rathee v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2010CWP/20131/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage, directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation regarding the alleged illegal installation of a high voltage electricity tower on his land and stay further construction. The court mandated a reasoned order if the claim is rejected.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within two months, stay further construction on the land pending decision, and ensure any rejection is via a reasoned order.

Rajinder Singh Rathee Vs Union of India and… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 20131 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.11.2010.

¶3

Rajinder Singh Rathee

¶4

--Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India & others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶9

Present:Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶12

Notice of motion.

¶13

Ms. Anjali Kukar, standing counsel for U.O.I., Mr. R.D. Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate present in the Court on behalf of Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate have been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself.

¶15

The petitioner is owner in possession of the land bearing khasra/kila no.39/3 measuring 7 kanals 8 marla situated in the revenue estate of Village Khahar, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar as is evident from the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (Annexure P-1). It is alleged that a high voltage electricity tower is being installed in the middle of killa no. 39/3 of the petitioner without any lawful authority and without even acquiring the land in any manner or paying any compensation without the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner has made representation (Annexure P-3) in this respect but no decision has been taken thereon till

¶16

-2-

¶17

CWP. No. 20131 of 2010

¶18

date.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner, referred to above.

¶20

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents no.3 to 5 to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Till the representation is decided, no further construction shall be carried out. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶21

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶22

16.11.2010. lucky

Rajinder Singh Rathee v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh Rathee v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhmi Chand Vs Managing Director/Secretary Hvpn and Ors.

Afsana & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Shakuntla Devi etc. Vs State of Haryana etc. and Ors.

The Delhi Coop Group Housing Society Vs State of Haryana an Dors

Ram Kishan Vs U.H.B.V.N.L and Ors.

Dilbag Singh and Ors. Vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd.