Deen Mohd v. State Of Punjab & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22971 of 2015 Date of Decision: October 30, 2015 Deen Mohd.

....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

--- Present: Mr.Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab.

-.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 & 2 only at this stage.

On our asking, Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf.

Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the State counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

CWP No.22971 of 2015 [2] In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is not necessary to seek any counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 & 2 or to serve respondent Nos.3 to 5 at this stage as no order prejudicial to their interest is being passed. Gram Panchayat of village Kup Kalan, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur initiated proceedings against Darbara Singh and Ujagar Singh staking its claim over the suit land. The District Revenue and Consolidation Officer, Sangrur, vide order allegedly passed on 02.07.2015/04.08.2015 (P-2) has sanctioned mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner claims that Darbara Singh, who was first respondent in those proceedings, had sold his land to the petitioner by way of a registered sale-deed dated 04.02.

2004 and since Darbara Singh was left with no interest or title, he did not contest the above-stated proceedings. The petitioner, on coming to know about passing of the order dated 02.07.2015/04.08.2015 (P-2), moved an application dated 15.09.2015 for recall of that order but his application is said to have been dismissed and no copy of the order passed on that application has been supplied to him. The limited relief sought in this writ petition is to direct respondent No.2 to provide a copy of the order passed on his application dated 15.09.2015 so as to enable the petitioner to avail his legal remedies.

We find no legal impediment against grant of above-stated relief. The writ petition is thus disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to provide a copy of the order, if any, passed on the application dated 15.09.2015 moved by the petitioner, within one week so as to enable him to avail his remedies in accordance with law.

CWP No.22971 of 2015 [3] Let status-quo re: possession and title be maintained for a period of one month.

Let a copy of this order be given dasti to Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for information and necessary action.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE October 30, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE