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 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdev Singh vs The Addl. Director on 22 February, 2010

Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Alok Singh

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                         CHANDIGARH.



                                      L.P.A. No.838 of 2009 (O&M)
                                        Date of decision: 22.2.2010

Jagdev Singh.
                                                      -----Appellant
                                Vs.
The Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and
others.
                                                  -----Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

Present:-   Ms. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate
            for the appellant.

            Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate
            for respondent(s).
                -----


ORDER:

1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order passed by the Director, Consolidation under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act").

2. As a result of consolidation of holdings, repartition was carried out. The appellant filed application under Section 42 of the Act, claiming that his plot was divided into two parts and he LPA No.838 of 2009 2 has not been allotted area in lieu thereof. The Director dismissed the application, holding that the appellant had sold his original area and in such situation, he had no right to any allotment. Writ petition against the said order has been dismissed.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even though the appellant had sold one out of the two plots and was entitled to allotment for the unsold area, which aspect has not been taken into account. Since learned counsel for the contesting respondents is unable to show any specific finding on this aspect, in the impugned order of the Director, without expressing any opinion on merits, we remand the matter to the Director for taking an appropriate decision in accordance with law, after considering the objection of the appellant.

5. Parties are directed to appear for further proceedings before the Director on 29.3.2010. The matter may be disposed of, thereafter, within six months.

6. The appeal is disposed of.


                                       ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
                                               JUDGE


February 22, 2010                            ( ALOK SINGH )
ashwani                                          JUDGE