Dismissed

Ravinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2010LPA/889/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this Letters Patent Appeal. The appellants failed to rebut evidence of unauthorized occupation of a common passage. The appeal was also barred by limitation, and the court declined to intervene in civil disputes between parties regarding the land.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The appellants were directed to sort out the matter with the gram Panchayat.

Ravinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.889 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2010

¶3

Ravinder Singh and others

¶4

…..Appellant

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

……Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih

¶9

Present: Mr.Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants

¶10

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)

¶11

Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed CWP No. 19232 of 2006 to impugne an order (Annexure P9) dated 12.11.2006, vide which Block Development and Panchayat Officer asked him to vacant unauthorized occupation of the land falling under a common passage. By passing the following order, learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners:-

¶12

“The allegation against the petitioner is that he has blocked the passage. For this purpose, notice was also served upon him vide Annexure P.8 by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The inquiry was held but still the petitioner has not vacated the passage. In case, the petitioner is in occupation of any passage, Panchayat and the BDPO is directed to take immediate action to get the passage vacated.

¶13

No case for interference in the writ petition is made out.

¶14

¶15

Letters Patent Appeal No.889 of 2010(O&M)

¶16

Dismissed.”

¶17

There is sufficient material on record to show that the appellants/their predecessor-in-interest have unauthorisedly occupied portion of the common passage. Counsel for the appellants has failed to rebut above said conclusion by making reference to any of the documents on record. If that is so, it is bounden duty of the appellants to vacate land meant for common use. It is contention of counsel for the appellants that they had constructed a double-storied house over the land in dispute. Be that as it may, they may sort it out with the gram Panchayat, this Court cannot pass any order in favour of the appellants. Otherwise also, this appeal is barred by limitation of 415 days. The explanation given is not sufficient to condone the delay.

¶18

Dismissed.

¶19

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶20

02.08.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge

Ravinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Gram Panchayat of Village Issi Vs Addl.Director C/H Pb.& Anr.

Raghbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Surinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Surender Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Surat Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Shakti Dutt and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.