Dismissed

Rajinder Singh Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2018LPA/702/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed where the High Court found the Single Judge correctly held the writ petition non-maintainable as a civil suit under Section 9 CPC offered the remedy, and no interlocutory interference was warranted regarding land demarcation.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed.

Rajinder Singh Ahlawat Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

Letters Patent Appeal No.702 of 2016 (O&M) {1}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

LPA No.702 of 2016 (O&M) in CWP No.4890 of 2016 Date of decision:24.07.2018

¶4

Rajinder Singh Ahlawat

¶5

... Appellant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶11

Amit Rawal, J.

¶12

Appellant is aggrieved of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2016, whereby the writ petition was disposed of being not maintainable as the petitioner had the remedy of a civil suit.

¶13

This Court, vide order dated 02.05.2016 by noticing the fact that the appellant was never associated with the demarcation report which led to his dispossession, had issued notice of motion. Affidavit of Ravinder Singh, Patwari, Halqa Dadri IInd, District Charkhi Dadri dated 20.07.2018 filed in Court is taken on record. It is stated therein that demarcation was done on 23.10.2015 after issuing notice to the appellant.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that action of the respondents is totally against the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as no person can be deprived of his land or title except in due course of law.

¶15

Savita 2018.08.01 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶16

Letters Patent Appeal No.702 of 2016 (O&M) {2}

¶17

We are afraid that the aforementioned argument of Mr. Bhan is not able to cut ice, for, an opinion expressed by the Single Bench in disposing of the writ petition by relegating the appellant to avail the remedy of a civil suit does not call for any interference as disputed question of facts and law are involved which can only be adjudicated in the proceedings, if taken under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶18

For the reasons aforementioned, no ground for interference in the order under challenge, is made out. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed.

¶19

(Rajesh Bindal) (Amit Rawal) Judge Judge 24.07.2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶20

Savita 2018.08.01 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Rajinder Singh Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & 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

M/S Indtec Elektro Control Vs Union of India & Others

The Medical Superintendent-Cum-Chairman and Others Vs Tarlochan Singh and Other

M/S Balaji Gram Udyog Mandal Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

M/S Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Ltd. Vs the State of Punjab and Others

State of Punjab and Others Vs M/S Goyal Automobiles, Patiala

Surjan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.