Disposed

Ravinderpal Singh Chadha v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2012CWP/15952/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a public interest writ petition seeking directions to remove encroachments in Jalandhar. The court noted responses from authorities regarding authorized permissions and pending action against unauthorized occupants, leading to no specific direction.

What did the court decide?

No direction issued;Disposed of noting that authorities have initiated action and should continue.

Ravinderpal Singh Chadha Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 15952 of 2011

¶3

Date of Decision: 10.7.2012

¶4

Ravinderpal Singh Chadha

¶5

... Petitioner

¶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. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶14

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶15

This writ petition has been filed in public interest seeking issuance of directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to remove the encroachments/illegal use of the land details of which are given in paragraph No. 6 (Part-A, B, C & D).

¶16

Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, has been taken on record.

¶17

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and respondent No.3-Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, have stated in their respective replies

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No. 15952 of 2011

¶19

¶20

that so far as encroachment shown in paragraph No.6 (Part-A) is concerned, the building was raised on plot Nos. 116, 117 and 118 after getting permission. If that be so, it cannot be treated as an encroachment. So far as encroachments shown in paragraph No. 6 (Parts B, C & D) are concerned, it has been averred in the replies referred to above that to remove unauthorized occupation over public streets or any other public place situated in Raman Dada Market and Banda Bahadur Market, necessary notices have been issued to the encroachers and strict action shall be taken against them in accordance with law.

¶21

In view of above, no further action is needed in this writ petition and the same is disposed of. We hope and trust that the authorities of the Municipal Corporation and Improvement Trust, Jalandhar shall continue with the drive to remove the encroachments.

¶22

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶23

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶24

July 10, 2012 “DK”

Ravinderpal Singh Chadha v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinderpal Singh Chadha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Mohd. Rashiq & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baldev Raj & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Amar Nath Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kuljit Singh Nagra Vs State of Punjab Andors.

Surender Saini and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.