The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal against an order where the Single Judge had dismissed a writ petition. The Court found no illegality in impugned order challenging the dispossession of government land.
The appeal was dismissed.
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
LPA No. 759 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.5.2011
Jaipal and ors
…..Appellants
vs.
Chandigarh Administration and ors …..Respondents
CORAM: -HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: - Shri C.L.Sharma, Advocate for the appellants
HEMANT GUPTA, J
Challenge in the present is to an order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 3.2.2011 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed and the request for alternative site was directed to be considered sympathetically without creating any right in favour of the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants No. 1 and 2 are the owners of the land measuring about 10 Biswas each having purchased from Karnail Singh on 24.1.1986 whereas appellant No. 3 is the tenant on the land owned by Gurdev Singh. The other appellants are said to be in possession of the land and carrying on petty businesses.
LPA No. 759 of 2011
2
In reply to the said petition, the State has pointed out that Karnail Singh has sold 10 Biswas of his land to appellant No. 1 and 2 in the year 1986 but the possession of the appellants is in Khasra No. 8 which is owned by the State Government and the appellants are the encroachers of the Government land. In respect of appellant No. 3, it was asserted that he is in possession of the land owned by Gurdev Singh which land has not been acquired.
A perusal of the pleadings would show that the appellant No. 1 & 2 are said to be encroachers whereas the appellant No. 3 is said to be the owner of the land belonging to Gurdev Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out that any order of ejectment has been passed against appellant No. 3.
In view of the said fact, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by learned Single Judge which may warrant any interference in the appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
9.5.2011 (A.N.JINDAL) preeti JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition warrants interference in the present appeal.
Jaipal and ors
Chandigarh Administration and ors
HEMANT GUPTA
A.N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
