Back
KULDEEP TIWARI, SURESHWAR THAKUR
Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revenue rastas vital for access to fields (Para 2 , 5 , 9 , 12 , 15 , 19 , 22) |
| 2. petitioners argue against clu grants (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 30) |
| 3. petitioners' arguments against clus and sales. (Para 27 , 29) |
| 4. respondents challenge petitioners' standing (Para 31 , 32 , 34) |
| 5. writ court's limitations in adjudicating title disputes. (Para 33 , 39) |
| 6. disputes on easement rights not settled in writ (Para 38 , 41) |
| 7. court directs remedies under statutory provisions (Para 42) |
Judgment
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Since all the writ petitions embody almost similar facts, as also similar causes of action. Moreover, when all the relief’s ventilated in all the writ petitions (supra), are directed against the grant of CLUs to the developer/builder concerned, in respect of revenue rastas or passages, whereons the petitioner(s) claim the exercisings of their easementary rights. Therefore, all the writ petitions are amenable for becoming decided through a common verdict.
Facts of CWP-6696-2019.
2. The petitioners claim to be the Khewatdars/proprietors of village Kansala, HB No. 157, Tehsil Majri, District SAS Nagar Mohali. Thereins are averred to exist, revenue rastas, as became carv
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
