C.W.P No.21296 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
C.W.P No.21296 of 2008
Date of Decision: 18.12.2008
M/s. Omex Construction Ltd.
....Petitioner.
Versus
The Director, Consolidation Haryana and others
....Respondents.
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for respondent No.1.
...
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).
Notice of motion.
On our asking, Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 seeks an adjournment to
obtain instructions in the matter.
Having sought instructions, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 states that the Director, Consolidation of Holding, Haryana, has
actually and factually passed an order disposing of the claim raised by
respondents No.2 and 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has handed
over to us in Court today a copy of the order dated 30.10.2008. The same is
C.W.P No.21296 of 2008 2
taken on record and marked as Annexure ‘A’. A copy of Annexure ‘A’ has
also been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of
the handing over of a copy of the order dated 30.10.2008, the primary relief
sought by the petitioner stands disposed of.
The only other issue which remains to be adjudicated upon is
the alleged threat to the petitioner on the basis of notice dated 17.12.2008
(Annexure P-12) requiring the petitioner to participate in the proceedings
for demarcating the land in terms of the order at Annexure ‘A’, at Faridabad
on 19.12.2008 at 10.00 AM. The fear of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is, that immediately upon the demarcation of the land, possession
of the land in question shall be taken away from the petitioner. According
to the petitioner, the remedy of a writ petition against the order at Annexure
‘A’ is available to the petitioner, and as such, till the petitioner is afforded an
adequate opportunity to avail of the aforesaid remedy, dispossession of the
petitioner should be stayed.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1, in furtherance of the
claim raised by the petitioner, states that respondent No.1 has not
communicated any instructions to her, that the petitioner is to be
dispossessed of the land in question consequent upon the demarcation of the
land on 19.12.2008, in terms of Annexure ‘A’.
We are of the view, that the ends of justice would be met, if an
opportunity is afforded to the petitioner to avail of his rights to challenge
the order at Annexure ‘A’. For the aforestated limited purpose, without
expressing any views on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, we
are satisfied that the order at Annexure ‘A’ should not be implemented so as
to dispossess the petitioner from the land in his possession till 23.12.2008.
C.W.P No.21296 of 2008 3
Ordered accordingly.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the
petitioner under the signatures of the Special Secretary attached to this
Court.
( J.S. Khehar )
Judge
( Nirmaljit Kaur )
Judge.
18.12.2008
sk.