2 min read
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Journalism of Courage
Premium
This is an archive article published on August 11, 2017
Civil suit is appropriate remedy regarding Gwal Pahari village in Gurgaon: Punjab HC
The decision has come as a major relief for private parties in the PIL, who had contended that the case should be decided by a civil court and not High Court. The case had reached the court in April after a Gurgaon-based RTI activist, Harinder Dhingra, filed a PIL seeking a CBI probe in the controversial mutation of 464 acres of prime land in Gwal Pahari village.
The decision has come as a major relief for private parties in the PIL, who had contended that the case should be decided by a civil court and not High Court.
Stating that a civil suit is an appropriate remedy for all pending land disputes of Gwal Pahari village in Gurgaon, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Thursday said it would be improper for it to intervene in the case — where 120 civil suits are pending — at this stage. Instead, it asked the District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, to assign similar pending cases to a single court, preferably of a senior division civil judge.
The decision has come as a major relief for private parties in the PIL, who had contended that the case should be decided by a civil court and not High Court. The case had reached the court in April after a Gurgaon-based RTI activist, Harinder Dhingra, filed a PIL seeking a CBI probe in the controversial mutation of 464 acres of prime land in Gwal Pahari village.
The division bench of Justice S S Saron and Justice Avneesh Jhingan passed separate orders on disputes related to Metro Valley Business Park Private Limited and ASF Buildwell Private Limited, which have ongoing SEZ projects in the village. Resuming the hearing of the PIL, the bench asked the civil court to decide the case of ASF Buildwell “expeditiously”. It also ordered a status quo with regard to the “construction, alienation, possession and change of land use” till the civil dispute is pending.
However, senior advocate M L Sarin, counsel for Metro Valley Business Park, challenged the maintainability of the PIL and argued that the petition is aimed at “scuttling” his client’s ongoing project. “The petitioner did not disclose to the court that 120 civil suits are pending. I want the petitioner to be prosecuted,” Sarin told the bench. The bench then asked the civil court to decide the land dispute of Metro Valley Business expeditiously, at most within a year.
Advertisement
Top Stories
Live Blog
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement