Written on the basis of argument, the Court held that the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to challenge the proposed lease.
Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the alternative remedy under Section 10-A.
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 FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.21519 of 2011 Date of Decision:- November 21, 2011
Ram Kishan and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr.Jaivir S. Chandail, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the proposed lease of certain land by the Gram Panchayat. In our opinion, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy to challenge such lease under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioners to avail that remedy.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
November 21, 2011 (PARAMJEET SINGH) vkg JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy (Section 10-A) to challenge the proposed lease of Gram Panchayat land.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kishan and others
State of Haryana and others
Satish Kumar Mittal
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
