Petitioner challenged instruction validity under Writ Petition No. 13305 of 1993. Bench relied on prior Division Bench order dated 19.11.1992 to dispose of the petition without adjudicating merits de novo.
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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 13305 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 13305 of 1993 Date of Decision: 19.12.2013
Chaman Lal
.....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. D.C.Dhaula, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that issue raised at the hands of the petitioner in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 19.11.1992 (Annexure P-2) passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 14656 of 1992 (Smt. Prem Lata Vs. State of Punjab and others).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the matter has attained finality even up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is clearly recorded by the Division Bench in its abovesaid order dated 19.11.1992.
The operative part of the order dated 19.11.1992 passed by the Division Bench reads as under:-
“ On notice of motion having been issued,
Kumar Amit 2013.12.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No. 13305 of 1993
2
reply has been filed by the State and others officials respondents inter alia asserting that against the decision in Chamkaur Singh's case (supra), SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court and operation of the judgment has been stayed. Copy of the order of the Supreme Court Annexure R/1 has been produced. The stay order granted by the Supreme Court can have no effect on the decision of the present writ petition. A fresh cause of action accrued to the petitioner on issuing of instructions dated 12.10.1992 Annexure P/1 which was not at all subject of consideration in the previous writ petition or in the S.L.P. which is pending in the Supreme Court. However, reasons which were recorded for holding such instructions as invalid can well be adopted while considering the validity of the instructions Annexure P/1. Still the respondents would be at liberty to approach the Supreme Court for getting interim directions, if so necessary. The present writ petition need not be kept pending till the decision of S.L.P. aforesaid by the Supreme Court. For the reasons recorded in Chamkaur Singh's case (supra) instructions Annexure P/1 cannot be sustained in law. Thus, a direction is given to the respondents not to take into consideration the instructions Annexure P/1 while registering the sale
Kumar Amit 2013.12.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No. 13305 of 1993
3
deeds especially the sale deed to be filed by the petitioner.
With the directions aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs .”
In view of the above common statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 19.11.1992 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Prem Lata's case (supra).
Disposed of, accordingly.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
19.12.2013 Ak Sharma
Kumar Amit 2013.12.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Chaman Lal
State of Punjab
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
