Remanded

Rakesh Pal v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2015CWP/1267/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged encroachment on Gram Panchayat land reserved for a government hospital. The court dismissed the writ petition on the merits, directing the District Development and Panchayat Officer to verify allegations and take action within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur, to verify petitioner's allegations of land encroachment and take appropriate action within four months.

Rakesh Pal Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.1267 of 2015 Date of Decision: January 27, 2015

Rakesh Pal

.....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.

¶9

Present:Mr.S.S.Kainth, Advocate, for Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶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

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner is resident of village Wadda Kalichpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. He alleges that the land measuring 1 kanal 18 marla, comprising Khewat No341/288, Khatauni No.1075, Khasra No.119, Hadbast No.671, is owned by the Gram Panchayat and is reserved for construction of a Government Hospital. He further alleges that the above-stated land has been encroached upon by respondent No.6 in collusion with Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, namely, respondent No.5. It is claimed that no action is being taken for removal of the encroachments. Some more allegations have also been made with regard to sale of Gram Panchayat land to private persons at the instance and/or in collusion with the Sarpanch.

¶16

Since the petitioner has already represented the authorities with regard to the afore-stated allegations, we

¶17

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.02.21 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No.1267 of 2015 [2]

¶19

need not to express any opinion on merits and suffice it would to be to direct the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur, to whom the representation dated 01.12.2014 (Annexure P-3) has been made, to verify the petitioner's allegations and take appropriate action as may be required in law, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti.

¶21

January 27, 2015 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶22

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.02.21 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Rakesh Pal v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Pal v. State of Punjab & 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

Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Ors. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Kaushal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hardial Singh and Anr. Vs Director Rural Devlp & Panchayat Deptt. & Ors.

Sadhu Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Vinit Jain & Ors.

Harjinder Singh Vs Director, Rural Devlp and Panchayat Deptt. and Ors.