The petitioner sought to withdraw a writ petition challenging an auction order and file a fresh petition after discovering that the land was purchased by a non-impleaded third party, Banarsi Dass. The court allowed the withdrawal.
The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition by making proper averments.
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
Civil Writ Petition No. 11151 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.10.2012
Samual
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State.
Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
When the case is listed for hearing on 12.10.2012, the question arose to find out is as to why Tehsildar wrote a letter, Annexure P-17 if the land had earlier been auctioned in favour of respondent No. 4. Mr. Nehra explained this position by stating that the Tehsildar had issued this letter on an application moved by the petitioner and was not aware of the earlier auction. On having learnt about the same, he did not take any further action and also on the ground that the matter is being considered by this Court. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner says that infact the land has been purchased on the name of respondent No. 4 whereas actual fact is
Civil Writ Petition No. 11151 of 2009 (O&M)
-2-
that it is purchased by one Banarsi Dass, Retired Chief Conservator of Forest. Neither he has been impleaded as party nor proper pleading has been made. Counsel prays for time to implead him as party respondent and also to make proper averment in this regard. As per the petitioner, he has learnt about this fact now.
Mr. Nehra, however, points out that no such plea has ever been raised before any of the authorities concerned and the petitioner through the present petition is challenging the order passed by the quasi judicial authorities. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to file fresh petition withdrawing the present petition. In fairness, the prayer of the petitioner in this regard is allowed. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition by making proper averments as considered necessary.
October 15, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition and file a fresh one after discovering facts regarding the auction of the land in favour of a third party.
Whether proper averments are required before impleading a third party who purchased the subject land.
Whether the absence of prior plea regarding the purchaser of the land precludes the petitioner from challenging the quasi-judicial order.
Samual
State of Haryana
Banarsi Dass
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
