Disposed

Balbahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2015CWP/18929/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-judge bench directed that case be referred to local press and considered for Digest reporting. Court observed Gram Panchayat was not heard on merits; if mutation update is pending, Tehsildar must conclude proceedings after hearing all parties within four months adverse order without hearing respondent not to be passed ai acquitted case: if any

What did the court decide?

Proceedings regarding mutation update to be taken to logical conclusion by Tehsildar after hearing all parties within four months

Balbahadur Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18929 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 09, 2015

¶3

Balbhadur Singh and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr.Santosh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab.

¶11

-.-

¶12

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

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶17

Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only at

¶18

this stage.

¶19

On our asking, Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf.

¶20

Let three copies of the writ petition be supplied to the State counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶21

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is not necessary to seek any counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 to 3 or to serve respondent No.4 at this stage as no order prejudicial to its interest is being passed.

¶22

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CWP No.18929 of 2015

¶24

[2]

¶25

There is a dispute between the petitioners and Gram Panchayat not only in respect of ownership of the suit land situated within the revenue estate of village Jodhwal, Hadbast No.21, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, but also in respect of entries made in the revenue record. The petitioners rely upon certain reports said to have been made by the revenue officers for reversing Mutation No.991 and to correct the entries in their favour. It is further alleged that despite those reports/recommendations, necessary action has not been taken.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel.

¶27

Since we have not heard respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat at this stage and its view-point is not before us, we clarify that these directions shall not be construed as an expression of our views on merits. Suffice to say that if any issue regarding updating of mutation is pending consideration before the Tehsildar, Samrala, let such proceedings be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law and after hearing all concerned. It is made clear that no order adverse to the interest of Gram Panchayat, Jodhwal shall be passed without hearing it. Let an appropriate order be passed within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

September 09, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE

¶32

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Balbahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 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

Bhupinder Kaur Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Jatinder Pal Singh S/O Ranjit Singh Wahniwal Vs High Court of Pb. & Hry., Chd Thru Reg. Gen.& Anr.

Jatinder Pal Singh Vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh

Jaswant Singh Matharoo and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs Election Commission of India and Ors.

M/S Deepak Builders Vs Chandigarh Administration & Ors.