Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAURAV & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gaurav & anr. v. Union of India & Ors. - CWP-9157-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 10153 (9 November 2006)

C.W.P NO. 9157 OF 2002 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 9157 OF 2002

Date of decision : October 24, 2006

* * * * *

Gaurav & anr. ............Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & ors. ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. R.P.S Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Union of India.

Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent No. 11.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the orders passed by the Registering Authorities whereby on the basis of a notification dated January 15, 2002 issued by the Haryana Government, the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration has not been entertained and the petitioners have been communicated that they were required to obtain No Objection Certificate for the registration of the document.

Sh. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana at the outset has produced before us a copy of the notification dated May 27, 2003 whereby notification No.DTCP-STP(E)-M-2002/M263/176 dated January C.W.P NO. 9157 OF 2002 2

15, 2002 pertaining to Kaithal has been withdrawn by the State Government.

Faced with the aforesaid situation, Sh. R.P.S Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that even a General Power of Attorney presented for registration by the petitioners has been rejected by the registering authorities vide order dated May 10, 2002, Annexure P-5.

After going through the aforesaid order and the averments made in the writ petition with regard to the aforesaid order, we are satisfied that even the aforesaid order has been ostensibly passed by the Registering Authority on the basis of the notification dated January 15, 2002 which has since been withdrawn. If there are any other reasons for the passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the aforesaid order in accordance with law.

Present petition is accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

However, if the petitioners have any other cause of action arising out of any subsequent developments, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach this Court yet again in accordance with law.

Disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

October 24, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.