Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DARSHAN SINGH versus SURINDER KUMAR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Darshan Singh v. Surinder Kumar - COCP-802-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5117 (1 August 2006)

COCP No.802 of 2005 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.802 of 2005

Date of decision: August 22, 2006.

Darshan Singh

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Surinder Kumar & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Vikramjit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The dispute pertaining to possession over a piece of land, which the petitioner, on the one hand, claims to be Zumla Mushtarka Malkan and the Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, asserts that it is vested in it under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961, led the petitioner to file a petition under section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The petitioner sought some ad-interim injunction in the said suit, which, having been declined, he filed CWP No.7562 of 2004, in which this Court vide an order dated 29.5.2004 has directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession.

Alleging that despite the said ad-interim order, the respondents forcibly harvested the crop sown by the petitioner, this contempt petition has been filed.

COCP No.802 of 2005 -: 2 :-

On a query by the Court, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the suit filed by the petitioner under section 11 of the Act has now ripened for final arguments.

Having regard to the seriously disputed issue as to who, out of the two contesting parties, is in actual physical possession of the subject land, it appears expedient and desirable to direct the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Gurdaspur, before whom the above mentioned suit is pending, to dispose of the same as early as possible but not later than September 30, 2006. With these directions, this petition is disposed of.

Rule discharged.

August 22, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.