Monday, May 21, 2018

google plus

Posted at: May 20, 2017, 1:35 AM; last updated: May 20, 2017, 1:35 AM (IST)NADA VILLAGE LAND

HC orders status quo

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 19

Acting on a petition alleging that the land transferred by Nada village gram panchayat in 1966 to “Provincial Government Capitol Project, Chandigarh” was being encroached upon by land grabbers in connivance with revenue authorities, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed the maintenance of status quo.

The direction came on a petition filed by Rajiv Kumar and other petitioners through counsel Mohinder Kumar. The applicants-petitioners alleged the land recorded in possession of the Chandigarh Administration was being sold by getting sale deeds executed/registered with regard to shamlat land comprising Khasra number 129/1 and other Khasra numbers of shamlat land of Nada village. They added possession, however, was being given of land comprising Khasra no.129/2, which was in possession of the Chandigarh Administration. Taking up the matter, the Bench of Justice SS Saron and Justice Darshan Singh asserted a perusal of the jamabandi for 1967-68 showed that the land comprising Khasra no 129/2 was recorded in the ownership of the “Provincial Government”. The department of Capitol Project, Chandigarh, was recorded in possession.

During the course of hearing, Punjab Additional Advocate-General P.P.S. Thethi submitted he would get necessary and complete instructions in the case by the next date of hearing.

Fixing July 3 as the next date of hearing, the Bench asserted: “In the meantime, status quo shall be maintained with respect to land comprised in Khasra No.129/1 and 129/2 situated in Nada village.”


All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On