Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeOther LawsSDM, SHO, DPO Summoned Over Alleged Land Grab Using Fake Warrants: Punjab...

SDM, SHO, DPO Summoned Over Alleged Land Grab Using Fake Warrants: Punjab & Haryana HC

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notices to several senior administrative officials in connection with an alleged attempt to illegally seize land in Jhanjheri village, Mohali, using fake possession warrants. 

The court action follows a petition filed by a local farmer, Ram Singh, who claims the land belongs to the village’s gram panchayat.

The court has directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner, SDM Kharar, District Development and Panchayat Officer (DDPO), Tehsildar Kharar, Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) Kharar, SHO Amit Sharma, the Gram Panchayat of Jhanjheri, and one Raghu Mudgal to appear in person on July 4.

According to the petition, despite a High Court ruling affirming that specific khasra numbers are the legal property of the gram panchayat—and a subsequent resolution passed by the panchayat confirming the same—officials allegedly arrived at the site with possession warrants that cited unrelated land parcel numbers.

Ram Singh has further alleged that the attempted land grab occurred at night and was carried out under the pretext of these “fabricated” warrants. He claimed that in the aftermath, the officials unlawfully suspended the village sarpanch and four panches, and filed criminal cases against 27 farmers who opposed the move.

The High Court has taken serious note of these allegations and has sought explanations from all those involved. The matter is scheduled for hearing on July 4.

Read More: Is Rs. 2000 Note No Longer Acceptable? Truth Exposed! [READ RBI’s Official Notification]

Amit Sharma
Amit Sharma
Amit Sharma is the Content Editor at JurisHour. He has been writing about the Indian legal market. He has covered tax & company litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and Various Tribunals. Amit graduated from MLSU Law College with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. from MLSU, Udaipur, Rajasthan. An Advocate in Taxation, and practised in Tribunals as well as Rajasthan High Court and pursued Masters in Constitutional Law. He started out small with little resources but a big plan to take tax legal education to the remotest locations across India and eventually to the world. His vision is to make tax related legal developments accessible to the masses.

Latest articles

ITO Cuts Rs. 1.42 Lakh Income Tax Demand to Rs. 671 Despite S. 154 Time-Limit Objection [READ ORDER]

In a significant taxpayer-relief case, the Income Tax Department has reduced a demand of...

Bombay High Court Quashes Rs. 20.16 Crore TP Adjustment as Mandatory SCN Was Not Served

The Bombay High Court has set aside a transfer pricing order proposing an adjustment...

Homebuyers Can’t Be Penalised for Developer’s “Past Sins”: Supreme Court Rejects NOIDA’s Time Extension Charges as CIRP Costs

In a significant ruling protecting homebuyers affected by prolonged insolvency proceedings, the Supreme Court...

S. 106 Can’t Replace Proof of Guilt: Supreme Court Acquits Man in Kidnapping-Murder Case, Calls Investigation ‘Shoddy’

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted in a kidnapping and murder case...

More like this

ITO Cuts Rs. 1.42 Lakh Income Tax Demand to Rs. 671 Despite S. 154 Time-Limit Objection [READ ORDER]

In a significant taxpayer-relief case, the Income Tax Department has reduced a demand of...

Bombay High Court Quashes Rs. 20.16 Crore TP Adjustment as Mandatory SCN Was Not Served

The Bombay High Court has set aside a transfer pricing order proposing an adjustment...

Homebuyers Can’t Be Penalised for Developer’s “Past Sins”: Supreme Court Rejects NOIDA’s Time Extension Charges as CIRP Costs

In a significant ruling protecting homebuyers affected by prolonged insolvency proceedings, the Supreme Court...