Disposed

Mir Singh and Anr. v. Commissioner Rohtak Division and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2015CWP/18687/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Divisional Commissioner to verify if a 1994 land consolidation petition under the 1948 Act filed against petitioners remains pending. If true, the authority must decide it within four months with notice to parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 1 to verify the pending status of a 1994 consolidation petition and, if pending, decide it within four months.

Mir Singh and Anr. Vs Commissioner Rohtak Division… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18687 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 04, 2015

¶3

Mir Singh and another

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Commissioner, Rohtak Division and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.

¶9

Present: Mr.V.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioners claim that respondent No.2 had filed a petition on 11.06.1994 (P-1) under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the 1948 Act') which is still pending before respondent No.1, namely, Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak-cum-Consolidation Officer. The petitioners were statedly served in that petition in the year 2010 and they have already filed their reply.

¶13

It is in this backdrop that a direction for timely disposal of the said petition under the 1948 Act has been sought.

¶14

Owing to the nature of relief sought in this petition, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to respondent No.2 and force him to incur litigation expenses. Suffice it to observe that if 1994 petition is still pending consideration before respondent No.1, we would expect that Authority to decide the same expeditiously. The writ petition is

¶15

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.24 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CWP No.18687 of 2015 [2]

¶17

thus disposed of without expressing any views on merits, with a direction to respondent No.1 to verify the above-stated claim and if it is found that such a petition is still pending, let the same be taken up and decided after advance notice to the parties within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

September 04, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH] mohinder JUDGE

¶22

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.24 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Mir Singh and Anr. v. Commissioner Rohtak Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mir Singh and Anr. v. Commissioner Rohtak Division and Ors.

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

Gurinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Latif Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Swaran Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ajit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Prem Singh Vs Director Gram Panchayat & Ors.