Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hsiidc vs Parmanand And Ors on 23 March, 2018
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : 23.3.2018
(1) CR-7805-2016 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Parmanand and ors ....... Respondents
(2) CR-7820-2016 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Hoshiyar Singh and ors ....... Respondents
(3) CR-7904-2016 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Gajraj and ors ....... Respondents
(4) CR-7905-2016 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Rohtash and ors ....... Respondents
(5) CR-2871-2016 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh and ors ....... Respondents
(6) CR-3071-2016 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Sudh Ram and ors ....... Respondents
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2018 08:57:12 :::
CR-7805-2016 (O&M) -1-
(7) CR-3072-2016 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Abhay Singh and ors ....... Respondents
(8) CR-8772-2016
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Manohar Lal and ors ....... Respondents
(9) CR-8799-2016 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Sarbati and ors ....... Respondents
(10) CR-40-2017 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Sharbati and ors ....... Respondents
(11) CR-42-2017 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Satish and ors ....... Respondents
(12) CR-3936-2017 (O&M)
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Roshni and ors ....... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner (s) in
CR-7805-2016 CR-7820-2016 CR-7904-2016 CR-7905-2016
CR-2871-2016 CR-3071-2016 CR-3072-2016 CR-8772-2016
CR-8799-2016 CR-40-2017 CR- 42-2017 CR-3936-2017
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2018 08:57:13 :::
CR-7805-2016 (O&M) -3-
Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate and
Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1
in CR 7805-2016.
Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 6 in CR-7820-2016
for respondents No. 1 to 4 in CR 2871-2016 and
for respondent No. 1 in CR 3072-2016
Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for respondent No.1
in CR 3071-2016
Mr. Tanuj Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for respondents.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Saini, DAG Haryana
1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
KULDIP SINGH J. (ORAL)
CM-5366-CII-2018 For the reasons mentioned in the application, copy of the judgment dated 25.1.2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CR-885- 2018 is taken on record.
CR-7805-2016 This order of mine shall dispose of above mentioned twelve revision petitions bearing CR-7805-2016; CR-7820-2016; CR-7904-2016; CR-7905-2016; CR-2871-2016; CR-3071-2016; CR-3072-2016; CR-8772- 2016; CR-8799-2016; CR-40-2017; CR- 42-2017; and CR-3936-2017 as the common question of facts and law arises in all the petitiones. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CR-7805-2016.
Learned counsel for the parties have informed this Court that the order of the Reference Court on the basis of which execution was filed, 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2018 08:57:13 ::: CR-7805-2016 (O&M) -4- in which the impugned order was passed have been set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter has been remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh decision.
Since there is no executable order, therefore, the execution at this stage does not lie.
It being so, present revisions petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed in the execution are set aside with liberty to the respondent(s)-land owners that in case, fresh order is passed by the Reference Court in their favour, they can always file execution before the competent Court to execute the said order.
Since the main petitions have been allowed, the miscellaneous application pending, if any, stands disposed of.
(KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE
23.3.2018
preeti
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable: No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2018 08:57:13 :::