Kusum Lata Vs. V.

Kusum Lata vs V.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Sep 27, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1091887

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1091887
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Sep 27, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kusum Lata

Respondent

Excerpt

c.w.p no.21992 of 2011(o&m) ::1:: in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh c.w.p no.21992 of 2011(o&m) date of decision : september 27, 2013 kusum lata, .....petitioner v. state of haryana and others......respondents *** coram : hon'ble mr.justice ajay tewari *** present : mr.o.p gupta, advocate for the petitioner. ms.shruti goel, aag haryana for the respondents. *** 1. whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. 2. to be referred to the reporters or not ?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. *** ajay tewari, j (oral) on 12.3.2013, the following order was passed :- “ a short reply on behalf of respondent no.3 has been filed in court today and the same is taken on record. a copy be furnished to the counsel for the petitioner. learned counsel appearing for the state would contend that the relief sought for in the present writ petition already stands granted and the petition accordingly has been rendered infructuous. list for arguments on 05.04.2013.”. thereafter, on 5.4.2013 since counsel for the petitioner was not present, the case was adjourned to today. today, counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the assertion made on 12.3.2013 but states that a perusal of the facts would reveal that kumar kishan 2013.09.30 11:28 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p no.21992 of 2011(o&m) ::2:: the petitioner has been harassed unreasonably. i have perused the record and find that this is indeed so. consequently, while dismissing the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous, the petitioner is held entitled to costs of ` 10,000/-. ( ajay tewari ) september 27, 2013. judge `kk' kumar kishan 2013.09.30 11:28 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh

Full Judgment

C.W.P No.21992 of 2011(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.21992 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : September 27, 2013 Kusum Lata, .....Petitioner v.

State of Haryana and otheRs......Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.O.P Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Shruti Goel, AAG Haryana for the respondents.

*** 1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.

*** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) On 12.3.2013, the following order was passed :- “ A short reply on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record.

A copy be furnished to the counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the State would contend that the relief sought for in the present writ petition already stands granted and the petition accordingly has been rendered infructuous.

List for arguments on 05.04.2013.”

Thereafter, on 5.4.2013 since counsel for the petitioner was not present, the case was adjourned to today.

Today, counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the assertion made on 12.3.2013 but states that a perusal of the facts would reveal that Kumar Kishan 2013.09.30 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No.21992 of 2011(O&M) ::2:: the petitioner has been harassed unreasonably.

I have perused the record and find that this is indeed so.

Consequently, while dismissing the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous, the petitioner is held entitled to costs of ` 10,000/-.

( AJAY TEWARI ) September 27, 2013.

JUDGE `kk' Kumar Kishan 2013.09.30 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2013 Same Parties Kusum Lata vs V. Same Subject Land Acquisition