DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common order, bunch of 24 cases i.e. CR No.5612 of 2018 titled Devinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5613 of 2018 titled Pal Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5614 of 2018 titled Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5615 of 2018 titled Rajjo Devi Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5616 of 2018 titled Sampuran Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5617 of 2018 titled Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5618 of 2018 titled Gurbachan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5619 of 2018 titled Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5620 of 2018 titled Gurdial Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5621 of 2018 titled Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5622 of 2018 titled Narinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5623 of 2018 titled Resho Devi Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5624 of 2018 titled Hukam Chand Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5625 of 2018 titled Kesar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5626 of 2018 titled Jaswinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5627 of 2018 titled Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5628 of 2018 titled Pyari Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5629 of 2018 titled Sukhwinder Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5630 of 2018 titled Sadhu Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5631 of 2018 titled Ajay Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5632 of 2018 titled Ronki Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5633 of 2018 titled Mohinder Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and another, CR No.5634 of 2018 titled Kaushalya Vs. State of Haryana and another and CR No.5635 of 2018 titled Ramu Vs. State of Haryana and another is being decided. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all the revision petitions, therefore, facts are being culled out from CR No.5612 of 2018.

(2.) Petitioner(S) in the aforesaid revision petitions have assailed the order dated 08.08.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide which order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the trial Court, directing the parties to maintain status quo was reversed and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for granting interim relief was dismissed.

(3.) Plaintiff/Petitioner in CR No.5612 of 2018 filed a suit for declaration, challenging the notice bearing memo No.667 dated 29.02016, memo No.1157 dated 11.05.2016, memo No.5018 dated 07.11.2016, memo No.2076 dated 206.2017 and memo No.2377 dated 31.07.2017 issued by the defendants for refund of the alleged compensation being illegal, arbitrary, null and void. Mandatory decree was also sought to be granted, directing the defendants to release the saving bank account of the plaintiff with immediate effect which were seized on the basis of alleged recovery of compensation. Brief facts of the case are necessary to be highlighted.