Partly allowed

Subhash Chand & Ors. v. Commissioner Rohtak Divn & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Nov 2015CWP/25064/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition against an order denying petitioner land access due to incorrect factual premises regarding ownership. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remitted to the Commissioner for a de novo decision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.02.2013 set aside; matter remitted to Commissioner to decide afresh within six months.

Subhash Chand & Ors. Vs Commissioner Rohtak Divn… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.25064 of 2013 Date of Decision: November 30, 2015

¶3

Subhash Chand and others

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Commissioner, Rohtak Division-cum-Director Consolidation, Rohtak and others. .....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.

¶8

¶9

Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.R.S.Budhwar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2to8.

¶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 controversy in the instant case pertains to alleged denial of access to the petitioner's land comprising Khasra No.27 shown in 'Pink' colour in the site-plan (P-3). The land shown in 'Yellow' colour in that site-plan is owned by contesting-respondents.

¶17

A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.02.2013 (P-4) passed by the Director, Consolidation-cumCommissioner, Rohtak Division, reveals that the petitioners have been non-suited on the premise that Khasra Nos.35//3, 7 & 15, which are adjacent to the main road on 'southern' side are also owned by the petitioners, hence there is no basis for them to contend that they do not have any access from the road.

¶18

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.05 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.25064 of 2013

¶20

[2]

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits and it is so fairly admitted by learned counsel for the contested respondents also that the above-stated khasra numbers are not owned by the petitioners rather the same belong to private-respondents. It is obvious that the first respondent has adjudicated the case by taking into consideration incorrect facts and contrary to the record. For that reason alone, the impugned order cannot sustain.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the impugned order dated 21.02.2013 (P-4) is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner, Rohtak Division-cumDirector, Consolidation to decide the above-stated controversy afresh and in accordance with law. The Authority shall decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶23

Ordered accordingly.

¶24

The parties are directed to appear before the above-named authority on 05.01.2016.

¶25

[SURYA KANT]

¶26

November 30, 2015 [HARI PAL VERMA] mohinder JUDGE

¶27

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.05 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Subhash Chand & Ors. v. Commissioner Rohtak Divn & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chand & Ors. v. Commissioner Rohtak Divn & 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

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Niranjan Singh

Baljit Singh Vs Niranjan Singh

Swaran Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Shiv Avtar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Bachna Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.