Resort row: HC turns down plea to implead Badals as party

Updated on Nov 17, 2015 06:58 PM IST

The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday declined a plea to implead Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal and his son and deputy chief minister Sukhbir Singh Badal as party in a land acquisition matter pertaining to Palanpur village in SAS Nagar.

The petitioner, Juveeza Chadha, has challenged the land acquisition for a road at Palanpur village, leading to a resort partly owned by the ruling Badal family.(HT Photo)
The petitioner, Juveeza Chadha, has challenged the land acquisition for a road at Palanpur village, leading to a resort partly owned by the ruling Badal family.(HT Photo)
Hindustan Times | By, Chandigarh

The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday declined a plea to implead Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal and his son and deputy chief minister Sukhbir Singh Badal as party in a land acquisition matter pertaining to Palanpur village in SAS Nagar.

However, the high court division bench of justice Hemant Gupta and justice Raj Rahul Garg stated that whether they (Badals) are to be impleaded as parties or not, could be decided at a later stage, if “necessity arises” during the course of hearing in the matter.

The high court allowed the application of the petitioner, wherein an amended plea incorporating some changes in the main petition was filed and asked the state to submit its response within two weeks. The high court bench while extending the stay on construction of the controversial road has posted the matter for hearing on December 15.

The petitioner, Juveeza Chadha, has challenged the land acquisition for a road at Palanpur village, leading to a resort partly owned by the ruling Badal family.

The petitioner is a resident of Majra village, through which the controversial 100-ft-wide and 1.3-km-long road is being constructed. The resort at Palanpur village is 2 km from the point where the road ends.

The government had defended the land acquisition exercise and also opposed petitioner’s move to implead Badals as party in the case. On the other hand, the petitioner had alleged that Badals were “necessary party” in the case as they were “beneficiary” of the land acquisition.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
SHARE
Story Saved
×
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
My Offers
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Sunday, October 02, 2022
Start 15 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Register Free and get Exciting Deals