Writ petition regarding illegal encroachment on land disposed of as withdrawn by the High Court after the lower authority withdrew the impugned order due to wrong impression.
Present petition disposed of as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.22054 of 2011 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.22054 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: March 12, 2012
Sunil Kumar Bathla
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Parshad, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Jasmer Singh, Advocate, for Mr. S.S. Kharb, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 6.
Mr.R.C. Setia, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Swinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.7.
********
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking a writ of mandamus for directing respondents No.1 and 2 to hold an enquiry into the acts of respondents No.3 to 6 whereby as per averments they are helping respondents No.7 to 12 in grabbing the land of the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Further a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondents No.1 and 2 to protect the life and landed
::2::
CWP No.22054 of 2011 (O & M)
property of the petitioner and restore the possession of the same as per order/letter dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-11), whereby the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Panipat, in a communication addressed to the Tehsildar, Panipat has observed that the possession of the land be given back to the petitioner-Sunil Kumar son of Ram Nath, resident of village Babarpur.
Upon notice having been issued to the respondents, a short reply on behalf of respondent No.7 has been filed along with which a copy of communication dated 16.03.2011 sent by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Panipat addressed to the Tehsildar, Panipat, has been appended as Annexure R-7/1 whereby the Block Development and Panchayat Officer has categorically withdrawn the order/communication dated 8.03.2011 stating that the letter dated 8.03.2011 had been issued under wrong impression. In the aforesaid communication, it has also been stated that according to the rules, possession be taken from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and be delivered to the persons from whom the possession had been taken or whosoever was in the possession of property earlier, the possession be given to the same person.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition with liberty to challenge Annexure R-7/1 communication dated 16.03.2011.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take
CWP No.22054 of 2011 (O & M)
::3::
recourse to the legal remedies to assail Annexure R-7/1 dated
16.03.2011 in accordance with law.
March 12, 2012 sukhpreet
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant writ of mandamus for enquiry into illegal grabbing of petitioner's land.
Whether to issue writ of mandamus to protect life and property of petitioner.
Sunil Kumar Bathla
State of Haryana
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
