LPA-712-2024 (O&M) v. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER & Ors.
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the statement made by the Patwari namely, Mr. Ranjeet Singh, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 is factually incorrect, hence, the…
Judgment
. . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Yatin Bunger, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Khungar, Advocate and Mr. Saksham Khungar, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the statement made by the Patwari namely, Mr. Ranjeet Singh, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 is factually incorrect, hence, the present appeal may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to file review before the learned Single Judge. Ordered accordingly. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand
disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE
04.12.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No RIYA 2025.12.05 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.