Allowed

Jaipal Singh Dhull v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2014CWP/4473/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed restoration of a CWP dismissed for non-prosecution after accepting the petitioner's claim of ignorance regarding his counsel's death. The main petition sought release of an acquisition plot shared by New Hissar Cooperative House Building Society; the Court directed authorities to verify parity among society plots.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; order of non-prosecution recalled; main Writ Petition disposed of by directing authorities to verify factual plea on parity and pass an order.

Jaipal Singh Dhull Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No.4473 of 1992

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 4473 of 1992(O&M) Date of Decision: July 7, 2014.

¶5

Jaipal Singh Dhul

¶6

...... PETITIONER (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Haryana and another

¶9

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. J.S.Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for respondent No.2 – HUDA.

¶14

¶15

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶16

CM No.737 of 2014

¶17

This is an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case.

¶18

The applicant seeks restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 02.06.2011. It was noticed in the order that none had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls and that the petitioner was apparently no more

¶19

Singh Omkar 2014.08.01 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No.4473 of 1992

¶21

[2]

¶22

interested in pursuing the case further.

¶23

In support of the prayer made in the application, it is averred that the writ petition was filed through Sh. I.S.Balhara, Advocate, who passed away in the year 2005. The applicant-petitioner had no knowledge about the unfortunate death of his counsel and it was only on an incidental visit to High Court on 20.12.2013 that he came to know about the death of Mr. Balhara. Thereafter, he made inquiry about his case and found that the same had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.06.2011.

¶24

Upon notice, the respondent No.2 has filed its reply in which most of the averments are denied for want of knowledge. It is, however, pointed out that the petitioner kept on sleeping over his case for about two and half years.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the counsel through whom the writ petition was filed has passed away and it is quite possible that the applicant-petitioner was not aware of his death, we are inclined to accept the prayer made in this application.

¶26

Consequently, the application is allowed and the order dated 02.06.2011 dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and file.

¶27

CM stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

CWP No.4473 of 1992

¶29

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main case is also taken on board for final hearing.

¶30

The petitioner is a retired officer from the Department of Excise and Taxation. He seeks a mandamus to direct the respondentauthorities including HUDA to release Plot No.A-4 from acquisition. It

¶31

Singh Omkar 2014.08.01 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CWP No.4473 of 1992

¶33

[3]

¶34

may be mentioned here that the petitioner is a member of New Hissar Cooperative House Building Society which had developed 19 residential plots for its members. The petitioner was initially allotted Plot No.A-10 but subsequently, the allotment was changed to Plot No.A-4. It appears that the land where the Cooperative House Building Society developed these plots was acquired by the State of Haryana for HUDA to develop Sector 15A, Urban Estate, Hisar.

¶35

The petitioner's contention alongwith other members of the Society is that they have already carved out residential plots and intend to develop the site of the Society in a regulated manner for the same public purpose for which it was acquired.

¶36

The petitioner has further averred that most of the residential plots of the Cooperative House Building Society have since been released from the acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a categoric stand that except the plot of the petitioner, rest of all the plots of the Society have been released from acquisition.

¶37

If that is so, it appears to us that petitioner's claim for the release of his plot from acquisition also requires consideration at the hands of the respondent-authorities.

¶38

Consequently, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to verify the above-mentioned factual plea taken by the petitioner and if found correct, let the principle of parity be followed and an appropriate order be passed within a period of four months from the date of Singh Omkar 2014.08.01 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶39

CWP No.4473 of 1992

¶40

[4]

¶41

receiving of a certified copy of the order.

¶42

Ordered accordingly.

¶43

Parties to continue to maintain the status quo till the matter is

¶44

decided.

¶45

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

¶46

July 7, 2014. ‘om’

¶47

( LISA GILL ) JUDGE

¶48

Singh Omkar 2014.08.01 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Jaipal Singh Dhull v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipal Singh Dhull v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Comp Ltd. Vs Braham Parkash & Ors.

Jai Singh Vs Raj Bala and Ors.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Kanta Devi and Others

Ms Gursharan Kaur and Ors. Vs Ravinder Singh and Anr.

Joga Singh Vs Pardeep Kumar & Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chameli & Ors.