High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/574/2017dismissed

Manjit Kaur v. Ajeet Singh Pannu And ANR

2019-03-06Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur2 pages

COCP-574-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-574-2017 Date of Decision: March 06, 2019 Manjit Kaur .....Petitioner

Versus

Ajeet Singh Pannu and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

Present:

Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Aditya Sharda, AAG, Punjab.

Mr.Rupinder S.Khosla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Aman Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. ........

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. After hearing, it is apparent that in pursuance to the order dated 30.05.2013, the Deputy Commissioner enquired into the matter and directed an action to be taken against respondent Nos.6 and 7 (respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present petition) for misleading the revenue officials. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by the respondents before the Divisional Commissioner.

However, the Divisional Commissioner set aside the said order. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner was never challenged.

Accordingly this Court does not find that there is any wilful contempt. The same is accordingly dismissed. The rule issued against the respondent(s) stands discharged. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that respondent Nos.6 and 7 (respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present petition) after MEENU 2019.03.08 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

COCP-574-2017 -2getting the land mutated in their favour for a larger areas sold the same by way of carving out plots and the said land belongs to the petitioner in the present contempt petition.

If it is so, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate complaint and avail the remedy as available to him under the law. However, in case the petitioner decides to avail the remedy before Financial Commissioner, this Court has no doubt that the question of limitation shall be sympathetically considered taking into account that the petitioner had availed the present remedy instead of going to Financial Commissioner. March 06, 2019 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2019.03.08 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh