Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MEHAL SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mehal Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-19535-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12270 (8 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.19535 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: December 8, 2006

Mehal Singh and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

....

Respondents

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

PRESENT: Shri PPS Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

Notice of motion to respondent No.3 only.

On the asking of Court, Shri Rajeev Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India accepts notice on behalf of the said respondent.

Copies of the writ petition have been supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of directions to the respondents to permit them to cultivate their land, which is claimed to have been situated beyond the barbard wire on the Indo-Pak border. It has been claimed by the petitioners that similarly situated persons as the petitioners have been permitted by the authorities but the petitioners have not been permitted to cultivate their land.

Shri PPS Duggal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that a representation (Annexure P.10) dated September 10,2006 has been filed by the petitioners which remains unresponded so far. The learned counsel further states that the petitioners would be satisfied if the aforesaid representation is decided by the competent authority.

Keeping in view the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners but without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioners, we dispose of the present petition with a request to the Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, Headquarter, Ferozepur, respondent No.3 to take a final decision on the aforesaid representation (Annexure P.10) within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received, by passing a detailed and speaking order.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

December 8, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD 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.