Petitioner sought writ of Mandamus to direct the Dispute Redressal Tribunal to decide a pending application and restrain other respondents from giving physical possession of disputed land. The Court dismissed the petition by relegating the petitioner to pursue the existing proceedings before the DRT, Chandigarh.
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
CWP No.6596 of 2020 Date of Decision: 13.03.2020
Raj Kumar
......Petitioner
Versus
DRT-II, Chandigarh and Ors.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: Mr. Naresh Kumar Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAJIV SHARMA,J
The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.1 to decide application dated 27.11.2019 (P.6) with further prayer for restraining respondent Nos.2 & 3 from giving physical possession of the land in dispute belonging to him, to respondent No.4.
The lis pertaining to the matter in hand is stated to be already pending before the D.R.T, Chandigarh.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on examination of case file, we dispose of the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to pursue the proceedings already pending before the D.R.T, Chandigarh.
(RAJIV SHARMA) JUDGE
(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) JUDGE
March 13, 2020 manoj
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR 2020.03.16 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court should intervene in pending dispute regarding physical possession of land by directing the Appropriate Authority to decide the pending application.
Raj Kumar
DRT-II, Chandigarh
RAJIV SHARMA
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
