.....the acquired land was shamlat deh vested in it and the proprietors have no right whatsoever to seek compensation for that land. reference is made to an order dated 28.10.2010 (annexure p- 6) passed under the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 whereby the competent court has held that the subject land vests in the gram panchayat. having heard learned counsel for the petitioner- gram panchayat, we find from one of the impugned orders cwp no.13324 of 2013 [2].dated 4.8.2010 (annexure p-5) that the petitioner-gram panchayat had earlier submitted its objections before the executing court but those objections were not pursued and were rejected in default, allegedly due to fraudulent collusion of the sarpanch and panches of the gram panchayat who are statedly beneficiaries of the impugned orders.if that is so and if any fraud has been committed, the gram panchayat through its administrator would be well within its right to move an application before the executing court and seek modification/recalling of the impugned order. with this clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of at this stage. dasti. (surya kant) judge july 01, 2013 (surinder gupta) mohinder judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....from notary public and original is in possession of the complainant and copy of the same was supplied to him. further submitted that moreover the factum of execution of said rent agreement is to be decided in the pending rent petition. notice of motion for 1.7.2013. however, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the arresting officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under section 438 (2) cr.p.c.” it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 01.05.2013 it has also been stated by learned counsel for u.t., on instruction from si ramesh kumar, that petitioner has joined the investigation. however, bail application has been opposed. crm not m-13731 o”3. there are no allegations on behalf of the state that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the court, if released on bail. hence, in view of the fact that admittedly petitioner is tenant of complainant and complainant has already filed a petition.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....have remained hospitalized from 28.3.2010 to 13.4.2010. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal did not even consider the fact that the claimant remained hospitalized from 28.3.2010 to 13.4.2010 and he had produced his discharge card and other documents which at least showed that he had fractures. according to him, in these circumstances, a sum of rs.9000/- assessed as compensation is not adequate. learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the claimant did not prove on record any x-ray report not had he proved on record any expenses incurred in the treatment. according to them, in these circumstances, compensation to the tune of rs.9,000/- is adequate for his injuries. it is true that the claimant could not put on record any thing other than a discharge card. the only other document is copy of test report and copy of x-ray slip which does not prove any thing except the f.a.o.no.6356 of 2012 [o&m].3 .fact that he was directed to undergo x-ray examination. however, his discharge card is there on the record which notices that there was a crush injury on his right foot. the other fact that comes out clear on the record is that he remained.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to issue notice dated 13.6.2013 (annexure p-6) to the owners of the poultry farm under section 33-a of the water (prevention & control of pollution) act, 1974 and section 31-a of the air (prevention & control of pollution) act, 1981. however, the fate of this notice is not known and the grievance of the petitioners is that the construction is going unabated.”2. we are, thus, of the view that the haryana state pollution control board must dispose of the notice already issued to the alleged cwp-13651-2013 -2- offending party dated 13.6.2013 expeditiously so as not to make the relief sought for by the petitioners infructuous.”3. since sufficient time has elapsed, we direct the state pollution control board to dispose of the notice dated 13.6.2013 within a maximum period of 15 days from today and communicate to the petitioners the result of the same.”4. the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.”5. copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of the principal secretary (judicial).cum-joint registrar of the bench. learned state counsel to ensure due compliance of the instant order. ( sanjay kishan kaul ) chief.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....same. rs.no.2556 of 2013 (o&m) -2- counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that alleged recovery is being made on the basis of the rules, which are not applicable in the instant case. thus, questions of law as raised in ground no.9 of the grounds of appeal arises in this appeal. admittedly, the recovery memo was issued to the appellant under the statutory rules. no declaration has been sought by the appellant to quash the aforesaid recovery memo. in view of the aforesaid factum alone the argument raised by the appellant is liable to be rejected as no injunction can be issued against the authority which is making the recovery under the statutory rules. in view of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law, as raised in the grounds of appeal and as argued, does arise in this appeal. dismissed. july 01, 2013 (rakesh kumar garg) savita judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passed by learned additional district judge, palwal whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. civil revision no.6524 o”2. brief facts of the case are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendants. the said suit was fixed for plaintiffs' evidence for 11.08.1999, but neither the petitioner, not his counsel appeared on the date fixed and ultimately, the petitioner alongwith others was proceeded ex parte. thereafter, vide order dated 20.08.1999, ex parte decree was passed. it is the case of the petitioner that the next date of hearing was wrongly given as 11.09.1999 instead of 11.08.1999 and for that reason, the petitioner as well as his counsel could not appear in court. it is further averred that when the petitioner appeared on 28.08.1999 in court in some other case, he came to knot that the ex parte decree has been passed in the earlier suit on 20.08.1999. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the courts below. admittedly, the date for leading of plaintiffs' evidence was 11.08.1999, however, the petitioner was given date as 11.09.1999 and due to this reason, neither the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passed by the learned single judge, and a further direction to the respondents to pay interest to him on delayed payment of retiral benefits. the facts are not in dispute. the appellant retired from the post lpa no.514 o”2. of head cashier, haryana roadways on 31.3.2010. as payment of his retiral benefits was delayed, he approached this court by filling cwp no.4318 of 2012. that writ petition was disposed of as infructuous, on the basis of statement made by state counsel on 1.6.2012, when the following order was passed :- “counsel for respondents, on instructions from joginder singh, ticket verifier, o/o general manager, haryana roadways, rohtak, states that rs.1,80,980/- was released to the petitioner in march, 2010 on account of leave encashment, rs.7,28,852/- on account of gpf was released to the petitioner on 20.4.2012 and an amount of rs.2,64,524/- as gratuity was released on 2.2.2011 to the petitioner. the pension payment order has also been prepared on 5.1.2011, according to which the petitioner has been released pension also. this fact is not admitted by the counsel for the petitioner. however, in the light of the statement made by the counsel for the state, the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....no.10939 of 2013 -2- speaking order dated 2.1.2013, copy of which has been annexed with the written statement as annexure r-1. against rejection of the aforesaid objections, remedy of appeal has been provided under the punjab state election commission act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the act').which has not been availed by the petitioners.in spite of these facts, it is admitted position that the election process has already started and elections to the gram panchayat of the village of the petitioners are scheduled to be held on july 03, 2013. in these facts, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. faced with this situation, learned counsel states that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy under the provisions of the act and the punjab panchayati raj act, 1994. dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. ( satish kumar mittal ) judge july 01, 2013 ( mahavir s. chauhan ) ndj judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....rule.” counsel would submit that as per note 6, rule 7, the petitioner is entitled to fixation of his pay w.e.f.03.01.2006 at par with his junior namely sh. vinot kumar jerath. this court is further apprised that a legal notice dated 28.06.2011 (annexure p-12) already stands served upon the respondent-authorities and no decision thereupon has been taken even though a reminder has also been issued on 29.08.2012. in the light of the facts noticed hereinabove, i deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondents no.1 & 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and to take a final decision on the legal notice dated 28.06.2011 (annexure p-12) by passing a speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. disposed of. july 01, 2013 (tejinder singh dhindsa) harjeet judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....under section 126 of the electricity act, 2003 (for short “the act”.) asking him to pay rs.1,01,022/- (p-3).in the background of the above facts pleaded in the petition, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 5th respondent had no jurisdiction to check the premises with respect to petitioner’s account no.13/663. it is only the assessing officer named in the notification dated 27.12.2004 (p-4) who could carry out the checking/inspection. the notification (p-4) issued under section 126 of the act is meant for implementation of the provisions under section 126 of the act for lt consumers like the petitioner. the assessing officer can only be the assistant engineer/assistant executive engineer/executive engineers of operation wing of the area as mentioned in the schedule to the notification. the short controvers.as pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for determination of this court is whether the provisions of section 126 of the act read with notification dated 27.12.2004 authorizes a junior engineer to carry out an inspection. he relies on the bare reading of section 126 of the act which falls in the chapter of “investigation and cwp.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT