Dismissed¶24

Harnek Singh v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2025CWP/1505/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Harnek Singh v. Union of India and others; Civil Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2020 (O&M); High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; Harkesh Manuja, J.; decision 12.09.2025; Award dated 08.09.2014; Competent Authority-cum-District Revenue Officer, Patiala; release of Rs.4,67,407/- as petitioner's share; Rs. 3,45,593/- released per 33/292 share; Rs. 4,45,579/- paid to Ram Rakhan son of Amar Singh; Khasra No. 408/158; reply dated 28.09.2020 para-9; petition not pressed; dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to avail remedy as per law; pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy as per law; pending applications disposed of. ¶24

Harnek Singh Vs Union of India and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

123

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.09.2025

¶4

Harnek Singh

¶5

.......... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India and others

¶8

.......... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶10

Present: Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner (through video-conferencing).

¶11

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶12

Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

¶13

Mr. Athar Ahmad, DAG, Punjab

¶14

****

¶15

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

The petitioner, by way of present writ petition, seeks issuance of directions to the respondents for releasing the amount of Rs.4,67,407/- as per his share in accordance with the Award dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the office of Competent Authority-cum-District Revenue Officer, Patiala.

¶17

[2] Learned counsel for respondent No. 4, by referring to para-9 of the reply dated 28.09.2020, submits that an amount of Rs. 3,45,593/- as per share of the petitioner stands released; thus, no cause survives in the present petition. Relevant para-9 of the reply dated 28.09.2020 is extracted hereunder:-

¶18

“ 9. That in reply to the contents of para No. 9 of the writ petition, it is submitted respectfully that the payment

¶19

DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

[2]

¶21

C.W.P. No. 1505 of 2020 (O&M)

¶22

of Rs. 4,45,579/- was made to Ram Rakhan son of Amar Singh according to the share in Khasra No. 408/158. Therefore the demand of petitioner is not justified. He has been paid a sum of Rs. 3,45,593/according to his share of 33/292 and after deduction of no litigation charges as per consent of the petitioner.”

¶23

[3] In view of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition any further and wishes to withdraw the same with liberty to avail remedy as per law.

¶24

[4] Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty, as prayed for.

¶25

[5] No orders are required to be passed in the pending application(s), the same shall stand disposed off.

¶26

September 12, 2025 'dk kamra'	( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶27

DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harnek Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harnek Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Punjab Waqf Board Vs Sarwan Ram

Harbans Singh and Ors. Vs District Revenue Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Collector and Anr.

Lakha Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Suman and Ors. Vs Dashrath and Ors.

Jitender Vs Dashrath and Ors.