Dismissed

Munshi Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2012CWP/11696/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order clarified that allotment orders could not be reopened to modify existing allotments to petitioners where such allotments did not impinge upon any landlord's claim.

What did the court decide?

Authority shall not modify allotments already made to petitioners during fresh adjudication of landlord claims as long as such allotments do not concern a landlord's valid claim.

Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

[1]

¶2

CWP No.11696 of 1988(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.11696 of 1988(O&M) Date of Decision:16.02.2012

¶5

Munshi Ram son of Lalu, resident of village Bani, Tehsil and District Sirsa and others.

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Haryana through the Collector, District Sirsa and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. LN Verma, Advocate and Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 5.

¶13

None for respondents No.6 to 13.

¶14

¶15

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

¶16

2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO

¶17

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO

¶18

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶19

All the petitioners, who are allottees, are already tenants in respect of lands, which had been declared as surplus. The petitioners challenge the order passed on 04.08.1988 by the Financial Commissioner only because the order sets aside the allotments made to 35 persons in respect of over 230 acres of land, which had been declared as surplus. The orders of allotment set out in various schedules the properties, which were respectively held and allotted to the tenants. The petitioners point out that the allotments have been made in respect of lands, which were not belonging to the

¶20

[2]

¶21

CWP No.11696 of 1988(O&M)

¶22

landlords, who themselves have not objected to the allotments or made any claims in respect thereof. Therefore, the writ petition is only by way of abundant caution that when the matter requires a fresh adjudication on the claims of the landlords and in the manner of allotments, the authorities shall not reopen the allotments made to the petitioners in respect of the lands specifically allotted to them since it does not concern anyone landlord's claim as falling within the permissible area. With these clarifications, the writ petition is disposed of and the authority shall in the manner of fresh allotments not modify the allotments already made to the petitioners.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶24

16^th February, 2012 Rajan

¶25

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE

Munshi Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munshi Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Ram Mehto and Ors. Vs Arun Gupta etc. and Ors.

Chand Kaur Vs Pankaj Nain and Ors.

Fci Workers Union Vs Fci & Ors.

Ram Rattan etc. Vs F.C.I.Etc.

Dina Ram Vs State of Pb.

Shallu Kalra and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others