Partly allowed

Kartar Singh and Ors. v. Commissioner-Cum-Deputy Ludhiana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Feb 2013LPA/301/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upheld the lower court's remand of the title dispute from the Commissioner to the Collector at Raikot, but directed the Collector to decide the case within three months of receiving this order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed, but the Collector (S.D.M.), Raikot, is directed to decide the matter within three months of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Kartar Singh and Ors. Vs Commi… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

LPA NO. 301 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: February 13, 2013

¶3

Kartar Singh and others

¶4

---Appellants

¶5

versus

¶6

Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana and others

¶7

---Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

¶9

Present: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the appellants

¶10

¶11

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL)

¶12

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.1.2013 whereby writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

¶13

Counsel for the appellants states that as the matter was remanded to the Commissioner, vide order dated 14.3.2012 (Annexure P- 15) passed in CWP No. 11199 of 2010, with a specific direction to decide the same afresh, the Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to further remand the matter to the Collector. The order dismissing the writ petition and affirming the order of remand passed by the Commissioner, may, therefore, be set aside.

¶14

A due consideration of arguments advanced and perusal of the impugned orders, do not indicate any error of jurisdiction or of law as would invite interference. The appellant's contention that as the matter was

¶15

LPA NO. 301 of 2013(O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

remanded to the Commissioner, he had no jurisdiction to further remand it to the Collector, is not tenable. The Commissioner, has after due consideration remanded the matter to the Collector (S.D.M.)Raikot, District, Ludhiana, to decide the question of title afresh, after taking into consideration observations recorded in the order (annexure P-15) passed in CWP No. 11199 of 2010. The order does not prohibit the Commissioner from remanding the matter to the fact finding authority, i.e., the Collector.

¶18

At this stage, counsel for the appellants prays that the Collector (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Raikot, District Ludhiana, may be directed to decide the matter expeditiously.

¶19

In view of what has been recorded hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed but the Collector (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Raikot, District Ludhiana, is directed to decide the matter, pending before him, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

(RAJIVE BHALLA)

¶21

( REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE

¶22

February 13, 2013 PARAMJIT

Kartar Singh and Ors. v. Commissioner-Cum-Deputy Ludhiana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartar Singh and Ors. v. Commissioner-Cum-Deputy Ludhiana 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

Manjit Singh Vs Director, Rural Develp. and Panch. and Anr.

Gram Panchayat Paintawas Khurd Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Norti Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mangat Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Naib Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jasbir Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.