Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 96727 (PNJ)

KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CWP/27370/2025 · 2025-09-15

Rohit Kapoor, To Be Nominated

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Karamjit Singh State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Arshpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, Advocate for the Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the mining undertaken by the private respondents without his permission. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has not granted any permission for mining and merely because a civil dispute is pending with the private respondents, it would not be open for them to permit mining to be undertaken over the land, 3. On oral request of counsel for the petitioner, the Engineer (Mining), Patiala is impleaded as respondent No.10 in the array of parties. 4. Learned State counsel states that the grievance of the petitioner can be examined by the newly impleaded respondent No.10. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27370 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 Karamjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Ms. Arshpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, Advocate for the Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the mining undertaken by the private respondents without his permission. It is submitted that the petitioner has not granted any permission and merely because a civil dispute is pending with the private respondents, it would not be open for them to permit mining to be undertaken , partition of which, has not yet taken place. On oral request of counsel for the petitioner, the Engineer (Mining), Patiala is impleaded as respondent No.10 in the array of Learned State counsel states that the grievance of the petitioner can be examined by the newly impleaded respondent No.10. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 27370-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 …Petitioner …Respondents ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA ROHIT KAPOOR Ms. Arshpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. The petitioner is aggrieved by the mining undertaken on his land by the private respondents without his permission. It is submitted that the petitioner has not granted any permission and merely because a civil dispute is pending with the private respondents, it would not be open for them to permit mining to be undertaken taken place. On oral request of counsel for the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer (Mining), Patiala is impleaded as respondent No.10 in the array of Learned State counsel states that the grievance of the petitioner can be examined by the newly impleaded respondent No.10. on his land It is submitted that the petitioner has not granted any permission and merely because a civil dispute is pending with the private respondents, it would not be open for them to permit mining to be undertaken Superintending Engineer (Mining), Patiala is impleaded as respondent No.10 in the array of Learned State counsel states that the grievance of the petitioner RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.16 15:51 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27370-2025 (O&M) [2] 5. In that view of the matter, we direct the petitioner to approach respondent No.10 by annexing all material in support of his claim together with a copy of this order. The respondent No.10 shall ensure that the grievance of the petitioner is examined in accordance with law after notice to the aggrieved persons and an appropriate order in this regard would be passed within a period of four weeks thereafter. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 7. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 9. Needless to mention that this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of case of either party. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 15.09.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.16 15:51 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.