Surjan Singh v. Union Of India And Others




    
      

    !"# $%&%!'())) *

*
  ))) %%!' + , +&-&


 

  * ))) &.!'# '&   ( /0

) *

01*

0

+ & '(

+)*-''21)*%'34 5#6!$

"!+7 . %%!' +)


  The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the objections (Annexure P-8), filed under Section 3(H) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Some facts are required to be noticed.

The petitioner claims that the Union of India has acquired some part of his land located in village Haider Nagar, Tehsil and District Malerkotla. He claims that the petitioner has filed his objections under Section 3(H) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which have not been decided by the competent authority.

A careful reading of the paper book shows that there is exNARESH KUMAR 2021.11.01 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

  

 parte decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell in favour of Nachattar Singh son of Ujjagar Singh. The petitioner claims that an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is pending.

In essence, the petitioner prays that the amount of compensation with regard to the suit land (a parcel of land subject matter of the decree) should be stayed.

The learned counsel representing the petitioner admits that the petitioner has also filed a similar application in the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13CPC.

In view thereof, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy before the court where the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC are pending. Disposed of.

  

      

   $!8 +5 
01*

0

'   7 7 +&.

9%'3:+ &!' # ( &:!

7 7 ++ .!+ ( &:!

NARESH KUMAR 2021.11.01 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document