Jagroop Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-8971-2022 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8971-2022 (O&M) Jagroop Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

     

 

      

  

 

      

     

   


  

  ! 

   

   !



   

 "

    #! #!  

 !!



 #   !

$   



CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:

Mr. J.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1.

With regard to the petitioner's prayer for grant of compensation in lieu of compulsory acquisition of his land measuring 6 kanals in village Thutianwali, district Mansa, in the light of the disputed facts which have arisen before this Court in proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw such prayer with liberty to the petitioner to avail of his remedy before the Civil Court, which we permit. 2.

It is, however, clari,ied that while granting the afore liberty we have not commented on the entertainability/ maintainability or GOPAL KRISHAN 2026.01.22 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-8971-2022 (O&M) merits of the remedy that the petitioner may avail in terms of the permission granted through this order.

3.

The only other prayer made through this petition is that 16 kanals 15 marlas of the petitioner's land in village Thutianwali, district Mansa had been exchanged by the petitioner for 16 kanals 16 marlas of land belonging to the State as the petitioner's land was considered more suitable by the State for making construction thereupon for the police department. However, in pursuance to the said exchange the petitioner and the State exchanged possession but till date, in spite of passage of about 15 years the State has not permitted change in the revenue record to re,lect therein the petitioner to be owner of the 16 kanals 15 marlas of land which the petitioner had received in exchange of his land measuring 16 kanals 16 marlas.

4.

Since learned State counsel has admitted the afore exchange of lands between the parties there is no reason whatsoever as to why the revenue record should not re,lect such exchange and it is so ordered. The State shall do the needful within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

 

        

   

     
  


             

            GOPAL KRISHAN 2026.01.22 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document