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 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharam Pal Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 21 May, 2013

Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Naresh Kumar Sanghi

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                                    CWP No. 11070 of 2013
                                         DATE OF DECISION : 21.05.2013

Dharam Pal Singh and others
                                                          .... PETITIONERS
                                   Versus
Union of India and others

                                                        ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI


Present:    Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

                   ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are land owners and entered into a Collaboration Agreement to lease their land with M/s Raheja SEZ Ltd., New Delhi (respondent No.4 herein) for development of their land in Special Economic Zone at village Hamirpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, have filed the instant writ petition for issuing direction to the Board of Approval (respondent No.2 herein) to decide the appeal filed by respondent No.4. The appeal is stated to have been filed against the rejection of the request of respondent No.4 to extend the validity period of the project.

During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed that when respondent No.4 could not fulfill its obligation under the Collaboration Agreement, the petitioners took possession of their land and CWP No. 11070 of 2013 -2- started cultivating the same, but in the revenue record, the necessary change with regard to cancellation of lease has not been made. In view of this fact, when the petitioners have already taken possession of their land, in our opinion, they have no locus standi to seek any direction with regard to the appeal filed by respondent No.4 against the rejection of its request to extend the validity period of the project. Faced with this situation, learned counsel states that that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty that in case they have any grouse with regard to not making correction in the revenue record regarding canceling the lease, they can pursue their remedy in accordance with law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.




                                          ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
                                                   JUDGE



May 21, 2013                            ( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI )
ndj                                              JUDGE