Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LAXMI NARAIN versus UT, CHANDIGARH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Laxmi Narain v. UT, Chandigarh & Ors - CWP-9785-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5805 (22 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 9785 OF 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 9785 OF 2005

Date of decision : August 31, 2006

* * * * *

Laxmi Narain ............Petitioner

Vs.

UT, Chandigarh & others ...........Respondents * * * * *

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

Present: Mr. Ram Saran Dass, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no.3.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The site in question belonging to the petitioner was ordered to be resumed. Later on, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, Chief Administrator vide order dated September 21, 2004 set aside the resumption order on an undertaking given by the petitioner that he would clear all the outstanding dues.

Consequently, it was directed that the petitioner shall clear all the outstanding dues along with the forfeiture amount within 3 weeks of the passing of the aforesaid order. The petitioner took up the matter by way of C.W.P NO. 9785 OF 2005 2

revision petition before the Advisor. Vide order dated May 11, 2005, the Advisor also set aside the order of resumption subject to the petitioner depositing the entire outstanding amount by June 30, 2005.

The petitioner has approached this Court claiming that the amount of forfeiture was not liable to be charged from him inasmuch as the resumption order has been set aside.

From the perusal of the orders passed by appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, we find that the petitioner had undertaken to clear all the outstanding dues. The aforesaid outstanding dues would definitely include the amount of forfeiture as well. Once the petitioner had given an undertaking then later on the petitioner could not be heard to make a grievance with regard to the forfeiture amount.

Dismissed.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

August 31, 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.