An appeal by Pawan Yadav was allowed in terms of a connected detailed judgment. The order itself contains no substantive reasoning.
The appeal was allowed in terms of a connected detailed judgment passed on the same date.
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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.2574 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:01.11.2019
Pawan Yadav
....Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate Ms. Bhanvi Sood, Advocate, for Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the landowners.
Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Addl. AG, Haryana. Ms. Vibha Tiwari, AAG, Haryana.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
The appeal filed by the landowners is allowed in terms of the
detailed judgment of even date passed in RFA No.2573 of 2013 titled as
“ Hem Chander & others Vs. State of Haryana and others .”
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) 01.11.2019 JUDGE Parveen Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
PARVEEN KUMAR 2019.11.05 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hem Chander & others Vs. State of Haryana and othersFollowed¶12
RFA No.2573 of 2013
Pawan Yadav
The State of Haryana
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
