Partly allowed

Des Raj Mall & Ors. v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2012CWP/14563/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a writ petition seeking to quash an order passed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948, which was challenged for non-disclosure of pending litigation. The court quashed the order and granted liberty to file fresh applications.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 24.5.2010 quashed; liberty granted to file fresh applications under Section 42 within three weeks; decision within six months.

Des Raj Mall & Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 14563 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: 17.7.2012

¶4

Des Raj Mall and Others

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and Others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.

¶10

Present: Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, Senior Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6.

¶12

Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for respondents No.7 and 8.

¶13

Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate for respondent No.9.

¶14

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶15

Civil Misc. No. 9061 of 2012

¶16

Civil Misc. Application is allowed.

¶17

Exemption is granted from filing of certified copies of

¶18

documents (Annexures R7/20 to R7/28).

¶19

Civil Misc. No. 9061 of 2012

¶20

Civil Misc. Application is allowed.

¶21

Documents (Annexures R7/20 to R7/28) are taken on record.

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No. 14563 of 2011 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

Civil Writ Petition No. 14563 of 2011

¶25

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P12) passed by respondent No. 6, exercising the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

¶26

The impugned order was passed on three applications moved under Section 42 of the Act by respondents No.7 to 9. It is grievance of the petitioners that the impugned order ought not to have been passed because when the said applications were filed, large number of writ petitions, pertaining to the land which is subject matter of the present writ petition, were pending before this Court but this fact was not mentioned in the applications moved under Section 42 of the Act. It is further averred that even respondent No. 8 himself had initiated the proceedings, registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 15198 of 2003 for removal of encroachment from the road in question so as to keep its width as per the master plan, however, he did not mention the above referred proceedings in the application move by him under Section 42 of the Act wherein impugned order came to be passed.

¶27

Pursuant to the directions issued by us on the last date of hearing, counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8 has placed on record copies of the applications moved under Section 42 of the Act, perusal whereof indicates that in those applications there is no mention/reference of the previous litigation which had taken place with regard to removal of encroachments and to keep the width of the road in

¶28

Civil Writ Petition No. 14563 of 2011 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

question though, in one of those writ petitions, respondent No.8 himself was a petitioner.

¶31

Faced with the situation, counsel for respondents No. 7 to 9 state that they do not have any objection in case order dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P12) is quashed and liberty is granted to respondents No. 7 to 9 to move fresh applications before respondent No. 6 after giving details regarding previous litigations. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has no objection thereto.

¶32

In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, we dispose of this writ petition quashing an order dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P12). Liberty is granted to respondents No. 7 to 9 to file fresh applications before respondent No. 6 under Section 42 of the Act. At the time of hearing of those applications, opportunity of hearing shall also be granted to the petitioners with liberty to raise objection thereto, if any. Such applications be filed within three weeks from today and upon the respondents No. 7 to 9 doing so, respondent No.6 shall decide the same within six months thereafter.

¶33

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶34

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶35

July 17, 2012 “DK”

Des Raj Mall & Ors. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Des Raj Mall & Ors. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jaspal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Voluntry Health Association of Pb. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mohinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish Ranga Vs State of Haryana and Ors.