Disposed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2015LPA/136/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal concerned the Obscure effect of remand order observations. The Single Judge remanded the case to the Superintending Canal Officer for fresh adjudication regarding a water-course under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The bench held that the remand invalidated the prior observations and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by the Superintending Canal Officer.

Sadhu Singh and Anr. Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.136 of 2015(O&M) Date of Decision: January 27, 2015

¶3

Sadhu Singh and another .....Appellants versus

¶4

The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

¶5

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

¶6

Present:Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶7

-.-

¶8

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

¶9

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

¶12

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶13

The learned Single Judge vide order under appeal dated 15.12.2014 has remanded the case to the Superintending Canal Officer to decide the appellants' appeal filed under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, afresh and in accordance with law.

¶14

The question to be decided by the Superintending Canal Officer would be whether any water-course was in existence, it having been left at the time of consolidation and if so, whether such a water-course has been demolished by the appellants?

¶15

In the instant appeal, the main grievance of the appellants is that in view of the observations made by learned Single judge, their claim in appeal is likely to be prejudiced.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that since the matter has been

¶17

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.02.04 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

LPA No.136 of 2015 (O&M) [2]

¶19

remanded by learned Single Judge for afresh adjudication of the appeal by the Superintending Canal Officer, the observations made in the order dated 15.12.2014 are not to be treated as the findings of fact and the Appellate Authority, namely, Superintending Canal Officer will decide the appeal in accordance with law and uninfluenced of such observations.

¶20

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Dasti.

¶22

January 27, 2015 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶23

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.02.04 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu Singh and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

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.

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

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

Gurnam Singh and Ors. Vs Director Rural Development and Panchayats Department Punjab and Ors.