Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab Etc on 16 January, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005841-DB
CWP-13161-2006 (O & M) -1- 2024:PHHC:005841-DB
106 + 227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-13161-2006 (O & M)
Date of Decision : 16.01.2024
BALDEV SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present : Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Imanbir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate and
Ms. Niharika Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Maninder Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. R.S.Khosla, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (Oral)
CM-17944-CWP-2023
1. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the demise
of petitioner no. 1- Baldev Singh has occurred on 08.05.2016. It has
been averred in paragraph No. 2 to the application that the deceased
petitioner is survived by LRs, as, enumerated therein.
2. Since for an adjudication of the instant writ petition, the
substitution of the deceased by his LRs is imperative. Therefore, after
allowing the asked for substitution, the instant application is allowed.
3. The amended memo of parties, as appended with the
application is taken on record.
4. No notice is required to be served upon the newly added
LRs-petitioners, as they stand represented through their counsel
Mr.Imanbir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate and Ms. Niharika Mittal,
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005841-DB
CWP-13161-2006 (O & M) -2- 2024:PHHC:005841-DB
Advocate.
Main case
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
fairly concedes before this Court that the subject matter involved in the
instant writ petition was also involved in CWP-1568-2007 and CWP-
17658-2006. Though, he also submits that this Court in a verdict made
thereons, on 18.10.2023, had declined the writ reliefs which are but
similar to the ones, as in the instant writ petition.
6. Nonetheless, he submits the stark factual distinctivity inter-
se the facts in the said writ petition and ones in the instant writ petition
are comprised in the factum that the writ lands are yet un-utilized for
the relevant public purpose.
7. Even the above submission gets unhinged in the wake of
this Court, in a judgment made by this Court in CWP-12423-2023 titled
as Anil Suri and another versus State of Haryana and Others, declaring
that the non utilization of the acquired lands, by the acquiring authority,
is not the relevant parameter for this Court becoming constrained to
release the acquired lands from acquisition.
8. Disposed of accordingly.
9. Since the main case itself has been disposed of, thus, all
pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(HARSH BUNGER)
16.01.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005841-DB
2 of 2
