JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Ahuja Vaishno Dhaba No. 1 – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
J.S. Khehar, J. - Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that common questions of fact and law arise for determination in 25 writ petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 1996, 2252, 2261, 2266, 2290, 2294, 2298, 2305, 2332, 2334, 2348, 2349, 2357, 2358, 2463, 3050, 3334, 4724, 4477, 4635, 4653, 4654, 4666 and 4723 of 2003. At the option of the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguments have been advanced on the basis of pleadings in CWP No. 2294 of 2003. Accordingly, in the instant order, facts have been taken from the pleadings in CWP No. 2294 of 2003.
2. The proprietor of the petitioner-Ahuja Vaishno Dhaba No. 1, Krishna Lal, purchased land comprised in Killa No. 172//9/1(2-17), 10/1 (1-8) in the revenue estate of village Murthal, Tehsil Sonepat, adjoining the G.T. road, through a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1986. It is the case of the petitioner that he constructed a building thereon for using it as a "dhaba" in 1986 itself. It is further the case of the petitioner that the building constructed over the land in question is exclusively owned by the petitioner and as such no part of the building can be described as an encroachment on Government land.
3. On 8.7.2002, the Di
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna
State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma
Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sihna
State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh
Bijaya Kumar Aggarwala v. State of Orissa
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh
Dr. Umrao Singh Choudary v. State of M.P.
State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association v. State of Karnataka
Radhey Sham Gupta v. State of Haryana
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjava
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.