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

Bakhshish Singh And Ors vs G Gopalan And Ors on 27 January, 2017

Author: Jaswant Singh

Bench: Jaswant Singh

                                                                                 210

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                                               C.O.C.P. No.801 of 2015 (O&M)
                                               Date of Decision: 27.01.2017

Bakhshish Singh and others
                                                                ......... Petitioners
                                          Versus

Col. S. Gopalan and another
                                                              ......... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH


Present:    Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1.

            Mr. Anant Kataria, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
            for respondent No.2.

                                 ****

JASWANT SINGH, J. (Oral)

The petitioners had filed CWP No.23259 of 2011 seeking quashing of the Notification dated 11.11.2004 issued by the Union of India/Ministry of Defence imposing restrictions in terms of Section 7(b) of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for short "1903 Act") against construction of buildings and other obstructions within the distance of 1000 yards from the crust of the outer parapet of Vallah Ammunition Dump and a part of the petitioners' land falls within that prohibited area. The petitioner had sought directions as stated above that they were entitled to damages and compensation payable under the 1903 Act. The said petition was dismissed with directions to the respondents to follow the procedure as prescribed under the 1903 Act and make an award of compensation within a period of four months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. Since the needful was not done, hence the present contempt petition.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-02-2017 01:57:58 ::: COCP No.801 of 2015 (O&M) -2- At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for respondent No.1/Union of India submits that the aforesaid directions have already been complied with. This fact is not disputed by learned opposite Counsel.

In view of the statement made by learned Counsel for respondent No.1, no further action is warranted.

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as infructuous.

January 27, 2017                                     (JASWANT SINGH)
Gagan                                                    JUDGE

                    Whether speaking/reasoned     Yes/No
                       Whether Reportable         Yes/No




                                2 of 2
            ::: Downloaded on - 05-02-2017 01:57:59 :::