Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28580 (PNJ)

RAJESH KUMAR v. GURPREET SINGH AULAKH AND OTHERS

COCP/993/2025 · 2025-07-28

Harkesh Manuja

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

168 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 993 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2025 Rajesh Kumar .......... Petitioner Versus Gurpreet Singh Aulakh, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Jasminder Singh Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 7-Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Status report by way of affidavit dated 19.05.2025 of Sh. Narinder Sharma, Municipal Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 stood filed. [2] Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7, by referring to para-10 of the aforesaid affidavit, submits that the encroachments made by private respondent Nos. 8 & 9 (Deepak Kumar Bhandari & Antaryami respectively) on the backside of SCF No. 5-6, 8, 9 & 11 have been removed; thus, no cause survives in the present petition. Relevant para-10 of the aforesaid affidavit is extracted hereunder:- “ 10. That the answering respondent is duty bound to remove the encroachments made by the private respondents on the land and the answering respondent has removed the encroachments on the backside of the Dinesh Kumar 2025.07.28 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP No. 993 of 2025 (O&M) [2] S.C.F. No. 5-6, 8, 9 and 11. The encroachments were in the form of the metal grills erected by the owners of the said S.C.F.s’ and the same metal grills being an encroachment have been removed by the office staff of the answering respondent. The photographs of the removing of the encroachments are annexed herewith as Annexure R-4.” [3] In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition, the same is disposed off accordingly. [4] In case the petitioner feels aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to avail alternate remedy per law. [5] Rule stands discharged. [6] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. July 28, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Dinesh Kumar 2025.07.28 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document