Tejpal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Oral judgment in a rejoinder where the court dismissed the matter without granting substantive relief or discussing specific legal propositions.
Oral judgment in a rejoinder where the court dismissed the matter without granting substantive relief or discussing specific legal propositions.
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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-11018 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.10.2011.
Tejpal and another
….Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Bijinder Dhankar, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 11.
NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Rejoinder has been filed.
On April 8th , 2011, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, as observed by Ritu Bahri, Judge:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioner No.1 had retired from Government service on 31.12.2010 and after retirement, he has gone back with his wife (petitioner No.2) to their native village in District Palwal. After reaching there, petitioner No.1 saw that certain land has been encroached by the private respondents and he is being threatened by them. Therefore, petitioners sought direction from this Court to provide security and protection to the petitioners. Petitioners have also made representations (Annexure P2) to SHO Police Station, District Palwal and Commissioner of Police, Faridabad Division, District Faridabad but no action has been taken.”
Learned State counsel has stated that enquiry was conducted and it was found that land of the petitioners was not encroached upon by anyone. There is no threat perception. He is not residing permanently in village Attarchatta, District Palwal rather resides at Chandigarh.
In view of this, no action is called for.
Dismissed.
(NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE
12.10.2011 Ishwar
Tejpal and another
State of Haryana and others
Nawab Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court