The petition was dismissed as infructuous after the petitioner sold the subject land, rendering the writ petition no longer maintainable.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 14650 of 2011 Date of decision : 13.10.2011
Jeet Singh
...Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D. Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Dharmender Singh Rawat, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)
At the very outset, learned counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has already sold the land in question, so, the instant writ petition becomes infructuous, which may be dismissed as such.
Learned counsel for respondents did not raise any objection, in this relevant connection.
In this view of the matter, the instant writ petition is dismissed, as having become infructuous, as prayed for.
October 13, 2011 ( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) naresh.k Judge
Jeet Singh
State of Haryana
Mehender Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
