Skip to content


G.D. Hans Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2236 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1982(1)SCALE513; (1982)2SCC379
AppellantG.D. Hans
RespondentHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana and ors.
Excerpt:
- section 5 & calcutta thika tenancy (acquisition and regulation) rules, 1981, rule 3: [dr.arijit pasayat & dr.mukundakam sharma, jj] provisional acceptance of return subject to verification of tenancy and without any legal right owner moving application before thika controller against preliminary acceptance of return and for determination of objection under section 5 held, there being no cancellation and only provisional order, there is no question of preferring appeal unless final order is passed. judgment of high court proceeding on basis of that there was cancellation is not sustainable. matter remanded to revenue authority to decide relevance of return and pendency of eviction suit. .....passed by the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh dismissing the writ petition c.w.p. no. 1094 of 1977 filed by the appellant at the stage of admission. on going through the papers we are of the view that this was a fit case which should have been admitted by the high court and disposed of by a judgment on merits. we, therefore, set aside the order passed by the high court and remand the case to the high court to dispose of the writ petition on merits. we request the high court to consider the submission which was made before us by shri p. p. rao that without prejudice to the merits of his case that he might be permitted to proceed on voluntary retirement instead of the order of dismissal passed against him. we leave this request to be considered by the high court. since.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the order dated July 28, 1977 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the writ petition C.W.P. No. 1094 of 1977 filed by the appellant at the stage of admission. On going through the papers we are of the view that this was a fit case which should have been admitted by the High Court and disposed of by a judgment on merits. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the case to the High Court to dispose of the writ petition on merits. We request the High Court to consider the submission which was made before us by Shri P. P. Rao that without prejudice to the merits of his case that he might be permitted to proceed on voluntary retirement instead of the order of dismissal passed against him. We leave this request to be considered by the High Court. Since disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1973 we feel that it is desirable that this case should be disposed of by the High Court as early as possible and preferably before the end of April, 1982. We hope that the High Court will be able to dispose of the case as suggested above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //