AMARJEET AND OTHERS vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CWP/11209/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226 227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010610272026

e-Filing Number

09-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/21675/2026

Filing Date

09-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11209/2026

Registration Date

09-Apr-2026

Judge

The Chief Justice , Mr. Justice Sanjiv Berry

Coram

The Chief Justice , Mr. Justice Sanjiv Berry

Category

13.1 - ENVIRONMENT AND POLLUTION ( 413 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMARJEET AND OTHERS

    Adv. KRISHAN SINGH DADWAL

  2. 2.State of Punjab and others

  3. 3.Kamal Dev Singh

  4. 4.Pawan Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

  2. 2.State of Punjab and others

  3. 3.Kamal Dev Singh

  4. 4.Pawan Kumar

  5. 5.Deputy Commissioner

  6. 6.Divisional Forest Officer

  7. 7.Range Officer Mehangorwal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    The Chief Justice,mr. Justice Sanjiv BerryView PDF

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court disposed of the petition without deciding merits, directing respondents to pass a reasoned order on the petitioners' legal notice regarding tree-cutting rights on delisted land within 10 days. The court declined to grant broader reliefs but required the authorities to formally consider and respond to the petitioners' representation in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11209/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab & Haryana High Court disposed of the petition without deciding merits, directing respondents to pass a reasoned order on the petitioners' legal notice regarding tree-cutting rights on delisted land within 10 days. The court declined to grant broader reliefs but required the authorities to formally consider and respond to the petitioners' representation in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case