Partly allowed

Kuldip Singh v. Dir., Rural Dev. & Panchayat Deptt. Pb. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Feb 2012CWP/20029/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana partly allowed the Civil Writ Petition, directing remittal of the petitioner's appeal to be decided afresh by the Director, Rural Development. It mandated a deposit of mesne profits as a precondition and stayed dispossession during the appeal period.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remitted for fresh decision; mesne profits to be deposited; dispossession stayed.

Kuldip Singh Vs Dir., Rural Dev. & Panchayat… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.20029 of 2010 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.20029 of 2010 Date of Order: 28.02.2012

Kuldeep Singh

..Petitioner

Versus

Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.

¶10

Present: Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶11

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner challenges orders dated 06.11.2007 and 30.12.2009, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Fatehgarh Sahib, respondent no.2 and the Director Rural Development and Panchayat Development, Punjab, respondent no.1, respectively.

¶13

Counsel for the parties agree that the controversy in the present petition is squarely covered by order dated 06.01.2012, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.16433 of 2010, titled

¶14

Gurpreet Singh and another v. Director, Rural Development

¶15

. and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others

¶16

In view of the agreement between counsel for the

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.20029 of 2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

parties, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of order dated 06.01.2012, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.16433 of 2010, titled

¶20

Gurpreet Singh and another v. Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others , the order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, who shall decide the appeal, filed by the petitioner, afresh and in accordance with law. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, shall grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and thereafter ensure that the appeal is decided within three months from 14.03.2012, the date on which parties shall put in appearance before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab.

¶21

The petitioner shall be required, as a pre-condition to

¶22

adjudication of his appeal, to deposit mesne profits calculated @ Rs.2000/- per acre, per crop for the last three years.

¶23

Dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

¶24

No order as to costs.

¶25

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶26

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶27

February 28, 2012 nt

Kuldip Singh v. Dir., Rural Dev. & Panchayat Deptt. Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldip Singh v. Dir., Rural Dev. & Panchayat Deptt. Pb. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwat Parshad and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Mattar Hithar, Thru Jagir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Hans Raj Vs Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ambala and Ors.

Dalmira and Ors. Vs Commissioner Ambala Division Ambala and Ors.

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

Gram Panchayat Vs Director Consolidation of Holdings Pb.