CHARAN KAUR vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — CWP/11455/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 17-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010618562026

e-Filing Number

10-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/21999/2026

Filing Date

10-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11455/2026

Registration Date

10-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Bench Type

Single

Category

63.15 - MISC. UOI ( 741 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226/227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHARAN KAUR

    Adv. MALOO CHAHAL

  2. 2.Union of India and others

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.Union of India and others

  3. 3.Deputy Chief Project Manager

  4. 4.Competent Authoruty cum District Revenue Officer

  5. 5.Chief Project Manager

  6. 6.State of Punjab

  7. 7.Director Panchayat

  8. 8.Deputy Commissioner Patiala Division

  9. 9.Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP-11455-2026 Court Decision (13.05.2026): Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute involves contested factual questions that cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction. The court found the petitioner already has passage access and is seeking a private passage to avoid earthwork costs. The petition was disposed with liberty for the petitioner to pursue available legal remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11455/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP-11455-2026 Court Decision (13.05.2026): Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute involves contested factual questions that cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction. The court found the petitioner already has passage access and is seeking a private passage to avoid earthwork costs. The petition was disposed with liberty for the petitioner to pursue available legal remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case