Dismissed

Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2017CWP/12268/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus to remove an encroachment from a PWD road. The court held that since the State had initiated proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1973 against the encroachers, no cause of action survived in the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for issuance of mandamus directing removal of encroachment was dismissed.

Ajit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CWP No.12268 of 1999

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.12268 of 1999 Date of decision:03.02.2017

¶5

Ajit Singh and others ... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl.A.G.Punjab.

¶11

Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate, for Mr. S.C.Pathela, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶13

Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing official respondents No.1 to 5 to get the encroachment removed from PWD road as shown in yellow colour in the map starting from Income Tax office to Sirhind City from the private respondents no.6 to 22 in khasra no.64.

¶14

The Registry has placed this matter before the Court on account of effecting of service upon respondents no.6 to 22.

¶15

Mr. Yatinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab submits that grievance of the petitioners stands vindicated as the State has initiated the proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises

¶16

Savita 2017.02.06 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

{2}

¶18

CWP No.12268 of 1999

¶19

(Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1973 against the private respondents and therefore, the proceedings in law had been taken.

¶20

In view of the aforementioned, I am of the view that no cause

¶21

of action survives in the present writ petition owing to the prayer noticed above.

¶22

Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶23

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
February 03, 2017
savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶24

Savita 2017.02.06 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Swami Saran Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Natha Singh Vs Fc(Appeals), Punjab & Ors.

Mohinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Shaminder Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Others

Uhbvnl, Karnal Vs Uhbvn, Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ano.

Gurshinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.