Respondent No.3 to demarcate disputed land and redress petitioner's grievance regarding revenue record entries within three months.
Direction to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to consider petitioner's grievance and redress it within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.25439 of 2015 Date of Decision: December 05, 2015
Ramesh Lal
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.
Present: Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
On our asking, Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Let four 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.
In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is not necessary to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.
The petitioner's case is that at the time of consolidation land measuring 52 kanal 2 marla was allotted to him in lieu of old khasra numbers but the revenue officials, allegedly in connivance with each other, made entries in
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.09 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
CWP No.25439 of 2015
respect of land measuring 29 kanal 7 marla only. The petitioner thereafter has been running from pillar to post for correction of the revenue record so as to get incorporated the entries of his entire land. It further appears from the documents placed on record that the authorities did entertain the petitioner's representation and the Consolidation Officer, Roopnagar asked the revenue authorities to remain present at the spot on 29.05.2015 for demarcation. According to the petitioner, no demarcation took place on 29.05.2015 or thereafter.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of relief sought in this petition but without expressing any views on merits of the petitioner's claim, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.3 & 4 to consider the above mentioned grievance of the petitioner and redress the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE
December 05, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.09 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Ramesh Lal
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
P.B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
