Petitioner sought mutation of acquired land. Court held the existing order is not adverse. Allowed withdrawal of the writ petition adjourningly with liberty to approach court if adverse order materializes.
Writ petition withdrawn; liberty to approach the Court if final adverse order is passed.
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
CWP No. 11363 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.05.2017
Krishna
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
PRESENT: Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J.
The only direction given by the Commissioner, Rohtak Range, Rohtak to the revenue authorities is that mutation of the land acquired by the State way back in the year 1971 be entered in terms of letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat dated 01.09.2015. There is nothing wrong in the order passed as mutation of the land which was acquired by the State has to be entered in its name. In case, any adverse order is passed effecting the petitioner, he may avail of his appropriate remedy, at that stage. At present, the order cannot be said to be adverse to the petitioner.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition
Ordered accordingly.
( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE
May 23, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Rishu Kataria 2017.05.25 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Krishna
State of Haryana and others
Rajesh Bindal
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
