Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OM PARKASH & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


OM PARKASH & Anr. v. STATE OF HARYANA & Anr. - CWP-15087-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 147 (16 January 2006)

Civil Writ Petition No.15087 of 2002.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision:24.1.2006.

Om Parkash and another.

...Petitioners.

Versus

State of Haryana and another.

...Respondents.

..

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N.Aggarwal.

...

Present: Mr.Sandeep Suri Advocate for the petitioners.

...

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

This writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking a direction against the respondents to remove encroachment on their land.

On 19.9.2002, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that the controversy involved in the present writ petition was identical to the controversy involved in Civil Writ Petition No.16786 of

2000. This Court had directed to list this case along with Civil Writ Civil Writ Petition No.15087 of 2002.

Petition No.16786 of 2000 vide order dated 19.9.2002.

However, the office recorded a note that the facts and the controversy involved in Civil Writ Petition No.16786 of 2000 were different from the facts and controversy involved in the present writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition was posted for hearing on 24.1.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is not identical with the controversy involved in Civil Writ Petition No.16786 of 2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, could not explain as to why this case was not got listed earlier for hearing if it had nothing to do with the facts involved in Civil Writ Petition No.16786 of

2000. In spite of his inability to explain the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners proceeded by making submissions on the merits of the case.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court vide order dated 7.11.1997 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.5968 of 1996 (Annexure P-3) had appointed Shri P.H.Vaishnav, retired Chief Secretary as Enquiry Officer to look into the illegal and unauthorized encroachment made by the individuals and colonizers in Civil Writ Petition No.15087 of 2002.

the area of village Anangpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad and he was directed to submit his report before 31.3.1997. It was further submitted that the land of the petitioners was found to be under encroachment but the encroachment has not been got removed. The report of Shri P.H.Vaishnav Committee has not been placed on the file according to which the land of the petitioners was found to be under encroachment nor any such prayer was made in the writ petition. The petitioners have also placed on the file one application filed by Shanti Saroop Bharti for restoration of possession and the order dated 9.3.1999 passed by the District Collector, Faridabad but there is nothing to show that if those proceedings had anything to do with the present petitioners. It appears, therefore, that the present writ petition is mis-conceived and is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

( S. N. Aggarwal )

Judge

January 24,2006. ( J. S. Khehar )

Jaggi 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.