Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR.K.L. SHARMA & ORS versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DR.K.L. SHARMA & Ors v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & Ors - CWP-1141-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 46 (6 January 2006)

CWP NO. 1141 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO. 1141 OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 24.1.2006

Dr.K.L. Sharma and others ....Petitioners.

Versus

Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ..Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the plan annexed to the instant writ petition as Annexure P1 and vehemently contended that pockets marked A and B thereon will be bifurcated with the construction of the proposed road. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that pockets A and B in conjunction with some other land around the flats owned by the petitioners constitute a park. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the road proposed to be constructed should not be CWP NO. 1141 OF 2006 2

allowed to be constructed, as the same would cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the green belt around the flats of the petitioners, wherein a large number of trees have been planted, will be destroyed.

Although the instant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the first blush seems to be attracted, yet learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to establish from any zonal plan or lay-out plan of the area that pockets A and B were ever ear-marked for a park. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept that the petitioners were earlier under the impression that there was a park in front of their flats, which is now sought to be disturbed by the construction of a road. In fact, on a perusal of Annexure P1 i.e. layout plan of MIG Housing Scheme in Sector 61, in which the flats of the petitioners are located. It is apparent that neither pocket A nor pocket B falls within the territory of Chandigarh. In fact, it is acknowledged in the pleadings of the instant writ petition that the area falling in pockets A and B is located in the territory of the State of Punjab.

From what was given out to the petitioners in the brochure at the time of purchasing the MIG houses located in Sector 61 (Annexure P1), the petitioners could never have been under the impression that a park would face their flats.

CWP NO. 1141 OF 2006 3

In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove and also on account of the fact that the petitioners own flats in the territory of Chandigarh, whereas their claim is in respect of land falling in the territory of the State of Punjab, we find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( S.N. Aggarwal)

January 24, 2006. Judge

vig


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.