Disposed

Gurmeet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Oct 2010CWP/9555/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under certiorari challenging an order accepting an appeal by a Gram Panchayat regarding common land. The court found no material to establish pre-1950 possession warranting interference but granted liberty to file an application to protect possession of one marla.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 4 for protecting possession of one marla. Impugned order not interfered with.

Gurmeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No.9555 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.9555 of 2008 Date of decision:13.10.2010

¶5

Gurmeet Singh and another

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Punjab through Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶10

Present: Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶12

¶13

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL)

¶14

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.03.2008, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), whereby appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been accepted.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the land before 1950. It is further submitted that as the land in dispute falls within the Lal Lakir and is part of the petitioners house it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

¶16

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that land in dispute though situated within the Abadi Deh is vacant land and therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence to establish their possession before 1950. The appeal was therefore, rightly allowed.

¶17

CWP No.9555 of 2008

¶18

-2-

¶19

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In the absence of any material to hold that the petitioners were in possession before 1950 or that land in dispute is part of their house, the finding recorded in the impugned order does not call for interference. However, as the petitiones were admittedly in possession of one marla of this land, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file an appropriate application under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 4 for protecting their possession.

¶20

Disposed of accordingly.

¶21

13.10.2010 shamsher

¶22

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE

Gurmeet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and 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

Joginder Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Shamsher Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Balraj Singh Dhillon & Anr. Vs Tarwinder Singh

Rana Harinder Vs Gunita & Ors.

Surjit Kaur Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs Pb.State and Ors.