Dismissed

Sardar Ali v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jan 2012CWP/14647/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the execution of a scheme to establish a commercial area at Malerkotla approved under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. The Court held the matter was fully covered by a prior Division Bench judgment, Mohd. Sabir, declaring the work lawful. The petition was dismissed as a misuse of the Court's process.

What did the court decide?

The Court issued no direction to the respondents and restrained them from no further action.

Sardar Ali Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 14647 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 14647 of 2011 Date of decision 17.1.2012

Sardar Ali

. Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .. Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶11

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶12

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶13

M.M.KUMAR,J.

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that a direction be issued to respondents not to change the nature of the Sajida @ Meena Park, Malerkotla and they be restrained from raising shopping complex on the half part of the land keeping in view the interest of the general public. The Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Malerkotlarespondent no.3 has filed a detailed affidavit stating that on an earlier occasion also a Public Interest Litigation was filed namely CWP No. 8027 of 2001 dismissed by a Division Bench on 25.7.2001 , to which one of us ( M.M.Kumar, J.) is a Member (Mohd. Sabir and others v. State of Punjab and others).

¶15

We have gone through the Division Bench judgement in Mohd. Sabir's case (supra) wherein it had been held that once a scheme under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 was approved by the State Government for construction of commercial

¶16

CWP No. 14647 of 2011 2

¶17

complex at the site in question and notification was published in the Punjab Government gazette on 13.3.1992 and the newspapers, then there was no escape from the conclusion that respondents were carrying on the work of establishing commercial area within the parameters of law. It is further appropriate to mention that notification dated 21.1.1993 had also been noticed by the Division Bench which was issued under Section 42(1) of the Act and it was in pursuance of the notification that the Land Acquisition Collector gave award on 18.1.1995 for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 12,14,169.80. Accordingly, we find that the matter is fully covered by the earlier judgement of this Court in the case of Mohd. Sabir (supra). The present petition is mis-use of the process of the Court and does not merit admission. Dismissed.

¶18

(M.M.Kumar) Judge

¶19

17.1.2012 okg

¶20

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge

Sardar Ali v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardar Ali v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritpal Singh Bhangu Vs State of Punjab

Rajbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harbans Kaur & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Commi. of Central Excise Vs M/S Associated Strips Ltd.

Ashish Sharma and Others Vs Bank of India and Another

M/S Mohindra Cranks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh-Ii and Anr.