Partly allowed

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Nov 2011CWP/10259/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partly accepted the writ petition. It held that the pendency of a disposed-of writ petition no longer impedes the grant of site plan sanction. The impugned order was set aside, directing the Municipal Council to decide the application within one month.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The Municipal Council is directed to decide the site plan application within one month.

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.10259 of 2009 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P.No.10259 of 2009 Date of Decision:1.11.2011

¶4

Jagtar Singh ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶8

Present:Mr.Paramjit Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms.Gurveen H.Singh, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶10

Mr.PC.Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶11

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶12

The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, the petitioner alongwith his other co-owners applied for permission and submitted the site plan for sanction, to enable them to construct residential houses on their land. The request was declined by the Executive Officer of Municipal Council (for short “the MC”), Banur (respondent No.3), by virtue of impugned order dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure P1).

¶13

Aggrieved by the indicated order, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.

¶14

As is evident from the record that, the main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the Executive Officer of the MC in declining the prayer of

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No.10259 of 2009 -2-

¶16

the petitioner for sanctioning the site plan, was the pendency of Civil Writ Petition bearing No.12254 of 1996 in this Court.

¶17

It is not a matter of dispute that the indicated writ petition has already been disposed of as having become infructuous by a Division Bench of this Court, by means of order dated 7.1.2010. Therefore, prima facie, there appears to be no impediment in granting the sanction/approval of building plan of the petitioner, to enable him to construct residential house on his land.

¶18

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P1) is set aside. The MCrespondent No.3 is directed to decide the application/sanction of site plan of petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶19

( Mehinder Singh Sullar )

¶20

1.11.2011 AS

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mewa Singh Vs Comissioner Patiala Division, Patiala and Ors.

(O&M) Devi Vs Krishan Singh & Ors.

Distt.Food & Supplies Collector Vs Bhola Singh & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Vijender Singh and Ors.

The Director, Food and Supplies Pb Chd Vs Parkash Singh etc.