direction to respondent No.1 to decide the stay
application in ROR No.80 of 2021 and further for directing respondent No.1
to hear ... decide together ROR Nos.73 of 2021, 74 of 2021 and 80 of
2021.
In 2015, one Ranbir Singh filed an application for partition
directing the respondent No.2 to decide the revision petition i.e. ROR
No. 415 of 2015 (Annexure P-3).
The learned counsel has submitted ... also dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Panchkula vide
Annexure P-2. Thereafter, ROR was filed in the year 2015, which is still
pending with
mandamus
directing respondent No.1 to take up and expeditiously decide ROR
No.620 of 2019, titled as 'Gaje Singh Vs. Gian Singh ... possession over
the property in dispute during the pendency of the said ROR, while
averring that the afore-said ROR had been preferred by them
based upon similar facts.
The prayer of the petitioner is that ROR No.377/2012 titled as
Rameshwar Lal and others versus Mandir Saman Nath ... Singhpuri
Parhladpuri alias Mandir Nar Singh Puri as well as ROR No.378/2012 titled as
Rajinder Singh versus Mandir Saman Nath Nar Singhpuri Parhladpuri
decide the stay application, which is pending along with
main petition No. ROR-605-2015 titled as Nar Singh and others vs. Sharda
Sanskrit Pathshala ... Punjab Village
Common Land Act and thereafter, petitioner filed ROR vide No. 605 of
2015-2016 before the Financial Commissioner of Bhiwani Division, which
been dismissed. He has further approached the Financial Commissioner
by way of ROR No.220 of 2021, which is pending. In the said ROR ... take up the application filed by the petitioner in the pending ROR
No.220 of 2021 on the next date of hearing
been dismissed. He has further approached the Financial Commissioner by
way of ROR-14-2021, which is pending. In the said ROR, the petitioner ... take up the application filed by the petitioner in the pending
ROR-14-2021 on the next date of hearing, i.e. 15.09.2021 and decide
Oral)
The petitioner is aggrieved because his stay application in the pending
ROR has been rejected and the ROR itself is not being decided.
Notice ... with a direction to respondent No.1 to
decide the pending ROR expeditiously and in any case not later than three months
from the date
because vide order dated 02.12.2020, the
learned Financial Commissioner has admitted their ROR but has declined their
prayer for stay.
Learned counsel for the petitioners ... only be issued to the
Financial Commissioner concerned to decide the pending ROR on 10.03.2021 i.e.
the date fixed before him and till then
issuance of sanad. As
mentioned hereinabove, challenge thereto by way of ROR 1007 of 2016 has failed.
3. Additional relevant facts which may be noticed
