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 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vimal Kapoor vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 15 March, 2013

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                  Civil Writ Petition No.5119 of 2013
                  Date of Decision : March 15, 2013


Vimal Kapoor                                    .....Petitioner
      versus
The State of Punjab and another                 .....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

Present : Mr.Vinod K.Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
                      -.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
   judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                      ---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks a direction to the Improvement Trust, Amritsar (for short 'the Trust') to formally exempt his built-up property/building from acquisition process of '340 Acres Area Development Scheme'.

The above-stated relief is sought on the basis of resolutions passed by the Trust on 30.3.2000 and 20.12.2000 (Annexures P-1 & P-2, respectively). It may be pointed out that one of the resolution dated 24.7.1995 passed by the Trust declining exemption from acquisition was subject matter of challenge before this Court in CWP No.2077 of 2001 (M/s Woolen Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others and other connected matters and the same was quashed vide order dated 25.2.2002. The case of the petitioner is that a similarly placed proprietor of the building, namely, Harcharan Singh Bhatti, filed Civil Writ Petition No.6646 of 2009 (Harcharan Singh Bhatti versus The State of Punjab and CWP No.5119 of 2013 [2] another) which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.2.2010 and the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Trust has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The grievance of the petitioner thus is that though similarly placed building/property has been exempted from acquisition but his existing structure has not been formally excluded by the Trust from the acquisition process despite various representations made by him including dated 14.6.2012 and 2.1.2013 (Annexures P-11 & P-12, respectively).

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought by him, however without expressing any views on the merits, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Improvement Trust, Amritsar, to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding exemption of his existing building/property from the acquisition process specifically in the light of Division Bench decision of this Court dated 25.2.2012 in Harcharan Singh Bhatti's case (supra). The appropriate speaking order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.


                                                 (SURYA KANT)
                                                     JUDGE

                                                         $




March 15, 2013                                  (R.P.NAGRATH)
  Mohinder                                          JUDGE