SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 979

SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Balbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. C.S. Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Jalota, Sr. DAG, Punjab

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Status report on affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 by the learned State counsel, and, the same is taken on record.

2. The petitioner has alleged in the petition, that an encroachment, upon, a recorded Gair Mumkin Rasta has been made by one Amolakh Singh, and, by one Jaspal Singh. Even a complaint in the above regard was made to the Competent Authority, whereafter as revealed in paragraph 6 of the reply, on affidavit, furnished to the instant petition, by the respondent-State, an enquiry was conducted by the BDPO Phillaur, for determining the factum of encroachment, if any, as made on the Gair Mumkin Rasta. However, if the enquiry report became founded upon a valid demarcation becoming conducted of the relevant site by the Competent Revenue Officer, thereupon alone it may have some validity.

3. In that regard it it is not clear from a reading of the reply, on affidavit, that in the BDPO Phillaur making a report about the alleged fact, he had depended, upon, a valid demarcation made of the relevant site, rather by the empowered Revenue Officer concerned.

4. In consequence, the decision taken on the complaint by the Competent Authority, is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top