The petition was withdrawn by the learned counsel with liberty to file a fresh petition challenging specific clauses of the oustee policy and the subsequent policy Annexure P-2. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
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
C.W.P. No. 12607 of 2010
Date of Decision:- 22.11.2011
Smt. Shanti Devi
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present:Mr. S.P. Kharti, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. ****
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral).
Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh one challenging Clause (i) of the oustee policy where it has been provided that if 75% or more of the total land owned by the land owners is acquired for the development of Sector then they are entitled for plots under the Oustee Quota and also to challenge the subsequent policy Annexure P-2 .
Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
22.11.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE
Smt. Shanti Devi
State of Haryana
Satish Kumar Mittal
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
