← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/18224/2024disposed of

Rajender v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2024-08-02Mr. Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia,Mrs. Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.18224 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.08.2024 Rajender .....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ***** Present:- Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.(Oral) The prayer made in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is that respondent No.2Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, is not deciding the stay application in the Revision Petition No.16461 of 2024 (Annexure P-22) filed by the petitioner on 22.07.2024.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said revision petition is pending before respondent No.2 for 12.08.2024. It is submitted that the warrant of possession have already been issued against the petitioner by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jind on 06.06.2024 (Annexure P-19) and in case the same are implemented, the said revision-petition would become infructuous. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the interim protection be granted till 12.08.2024. YAG DUTT 2024.08.05 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP No.18224 of 2024 -23.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 6 only and we do not issue any notice to respondent No.7-Gram Panchayat in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

4.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 6. 5.

Keeping in view the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the official respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner till 12.08.2024, which is stated to be the next date of hearing in the abovesaid revision petition. 6.

However, it is made clear that the respondent No.2 shall thereafter proceed to extend the stay and decide the case and the interim protection can be vacated, in case the petitioner is not able to make out his case.

7.

Resultantly, the present writ petition is disposed of. (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) August 02, 2024 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable:

No YAG DUTT 2024.08.05 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment