Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurcharan Singh Bharti And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 November, 2011

Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Paramjeet Singh

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                          C.W.P. No. 8958 of 2009 ( O&M )
                                         DATE OF DECISION : 30.11.2011

Gurcharan Singh Bharti and another

                                                          .... PETITIONERS

                                   Versus

State of Haryana and others

                                                        ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH


Present:    Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
            for respondents No.1 to 3.

                         ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners have filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra, whereby the title suit filed under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As Applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was decided against the petitioners; as well as the order dated 1.8.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 13AA (1) of the Act against the said order was dismissed.

CWP No. 8958 of 2009 -2-

During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that against the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 13AA (1) of the Act, the aggrieved party has remedy of revision before the Financial Commissioner under Section 13AA (2) of the Act.

Admittedly, the petitioners have not availed the said remedy. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the remedy of revision.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, if the petitioners file revision petition against the order dated 1.8.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, within a period of one month from today, the revisional authority is directed to consider and decide the same on merits in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order.



                                           ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
                                                    JUDGE



November 30, 2011                             ( PARAMJEET SINGH )
ndj                                                 JUDGE