Disposed

Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2014CWP/10699/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions not to demolish temporary cattle-shed/rooms near an Air-Force Station in Chandigarh. The Court referred to a prior judgment permitting small temporary cattle-sheds for agricultural purposes and stated that retention of such sheds could be considered by respondent authorities, while residential or permanent structures were not protected.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed to consider claim for retention of temporary cattle-sheds for agricultural purposes.

Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10699 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 28, 2014

¶3

Karnail Singh and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.

¶9

Present : Mr.Mohit Jaggi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioners seek a direction to the respondentauthorities not to demolish their cattle-shed/rooms. The above-stated alleged temporary structures have been constructed by the petitioners near the Air-Force Station/AirPort in Union Territory, Chandigarh.

¶17

It is not in dispute that identical controversy came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.21074 of 2011 (Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another), decided on 14.09.2012 wherein this Court held that no building can be allowed to be constructed in the subject area keeping in view the work of defence and the fact that such structures would cause obstruction in the smooth running of the Air-Force Station. The agriculturists/land-owners, however, were permitted to construct small size temporary cattle-sheds for the agricultural purpose.

¶18

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.29 14:47 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶19

[2]

¶20

CWP No.10699 of 2014

¶21

In our considered view, the claim of the petitioners for retention of cattle-shed (but not the residential house or a pacca structure) can be considered by the respondentauthorities in the light of the directions already issued in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra).

¶22

Ordered accordingly.

¶23

Let a copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner under the signature of the Bench Secretary.

¶24

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 28, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶25

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.29 14:47 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Nath Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Chandigarh Administration and Anr.

Harwinder Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pankaj Aneja and Anr. Vs HUDA and Ors.

Ajit Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ajit Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.