Partly allowed

Hasam v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2013CWP/22679/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal by the District Collector, Mewat, the Court held that an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for failure to deposit penalty citing Ranjit Singh. The order dismissing the appeal was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 31.10.2012 passed by District Collector, Mewat set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Hasam Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.22679 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.22679 of 2012 Date of Decision: 15.2.2013

Hasam

..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. D.Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 27.1.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Nuh and dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by District Collector, Mewat.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal has been dismissed by the Collector, Mewat, on the ground that the appellant has not deposited penalty by ignoring the Full Bench judgment in Ranjit Singh versus State of Haryana and another, 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 353, wherein it has been held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for failure to pay/deposit penalty.

¶15

Counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of Gram Panchayat property, the Full

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.22679 of 2012 2

¶17

Bench judgment cannot be invoked, particularly as the petitioner has not paid penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Nuh. It would be necessary to point out that a Full Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh versus State of Haryana and another, (supra), has held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for failure to deposit the penalty.

¶18

We have heard counsel for the parties. In view of the ratio of law laid down in Ranjit Singh versus State of Haryana and another, (supra), the writ petition is partly allowed, order dated 31.10.2012 passed by District Collector, Mewat, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Collector, Mewat, for adjudication, afresh, in accordance with law.

¶19

Parties are directed to appear before District Collector,

¶20

Mewat, on 14.3.2013.

¶21

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE 15.2.2013 ( REKHA MITTAL) VK JUDGE

Hasam v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasam v. State of Haryana & 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

Satbir Singh Vs Collector Rohtak and Ors.

Bakshish Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gram Panchyat Jant Vs Commissioner Gurgaon Circle etc.

Sujata Sharma Vs Bachan Singh

Janak Singh Vs Commissioner Ambala Division Ambala and Ors.

Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.