Harvinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6719 of 2015 Decided on : 09.04.2015 Harvinder Singh . . . Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab and another . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Manrai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2014/26.11.2014 (Annexure P-10), passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohali, whereby, the land of the petitioner was ordered to be attached and the petitioner has been required to deposit back ` 54,40,500/-.

2.

It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the announcement of the award, and payment having been made to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 could not have issued order Annexure P-10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 had illegally attached the property of the petitioner mentioned in Annexure P-9, and coercive steps are being taken for recovery of the amount. 3.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the JAWALA RAM 2015.04.23 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 6719 of 2015 - 2 - averments made in the writ petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition by relegating the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before respondent No.2, questioning the validity of Annexure P-10, on the basis of the factual averments made in the instant writ petition. Let a detailed and comprehensive representation be filed before respondent No.2 within a period of one month from today, who shall decide the same within a period of next three months, by passing a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. It is also clarified that no coercive steps shall be taken in pursuance to Annexure P-10 during the time representation is decided by respondent No.2. Needless to say, in case no such representation is filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (REKHA MITTAL) April 09, 2015 JUDGE J.Ram JAWALA RAM 2015.04.23 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh