Sunita v. State Of Haryana And ORS

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21450-2014 Date of Decision: August 09, 2017 Sunita .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.S.S.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vijesh Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

Mr.Radhey Shyam Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

Learned counsel for respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat states that as of now there is no proposal to construct a Chaupal on the land which was earlier in unauthorised occupation of Rangi Ram and which has been got vacated from him and is now in possession of the Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that in fact the petitioner and her husband have an eye on that land and they want to take illegal possession thereof. [2] In view of the above-stated categorical stand taken on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. However, no one shall disturb the possession of the Gram Panchayat over the suit land which has been got vacated from Rangi Ram. If there is any issue regarding the passage, the petitioner may approach the appropriate Forum.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE August 09, 2017 ( SUDHIR MITTAL ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2017.08.11 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh