The High Court at Chandigarh, in a brief order, directed reference to detailed reasons recorded in a separate order passed earlier in R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 for the disposal of the present appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 5940 of 2009 (O&M)
Baljit and others
.......Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the land owners.
Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana.
RAJESH BINDAL J.
For orders, see detailed reasons recorded in a separate order passed today in R .F.A. No. 1824 of 2006, titled Sudama and others Versus The State of Haryana and another.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE
01.10.2010 sharmila
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudama and others Versus The State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶12
R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006, Sudama and others Versus The State of Haryana and another
Baljit and others
The State of Haryana and others
RAJESH BINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
