number.
appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated february 23 1972 of the punjab haryana high companyrt at chandigarh in civil writ number 2112 of 1971.
appeals by certificate from the judgment and order dated february 23 1972 of the punjab haryana high companyrt at chandigarh in civil writ number.
s. khanduja for respondent number.
number 829/72 .
825 826/72 .
number.
825 831 956 of 1971.
2147 2168 2172 2200 and 2185 of 197 1.
number.
number 823/72 .
827 829 831 956/72 .
825831 956 823/1972.
827 828 856/72 .
c. manchandda and j. c. talwar for respondents in c. as.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
datta and s. k. dhingra for the appellants in ca.
civil appeals number.
datta for the appellants in c.a.
number.
s. das bahi for the respondent number 52 cm c.a.
1008 urmila kapoor and kamlesh bansal for respondents in c.as.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by grover j. in these appeals by certificate from a judgment of the punjab haryana high companyrt the main question required determination relates to the scope ambit and true interpret of s. 7 read with s. 1 1 of the east punjab utilization of land act 1949 hereinafter called the act.
on june 15 197 the sub divisional officer passed an order directing the tehsil to take possession of the land and give actual possession the of to the original owners.
number.
bishan narain and b. d. sharma for respondents number.
number.
number 823/72 .
823/72 .
civil appeal number 823 of 1972.
828/72 .
these proceedings were challenged in the high companyrt under art.
the lessees were required hand over possession to the original owners.
n. singhvi b. datta and s. k. dhingra for the appellant in c. as.
the companylector karnal out an area of 1154 acres in villages pehowa and murtzapur jointly to karnal companyperative society limited pehowa and lyalpur companyp.
number 826 1972 .
1 2 in c.as.
825 829 831 and 956/72 and respondent number 1 in c.a.
2 5 9 11 in c.a.
number 830/72 .
d. sharma for respondent number 1 in c.a.
830 831 956/72 .
in the numberice it was stated inter alia that the origin owners had applied for the return of the land leased out as the period of the lease had i expired.
number.
226 of the companystitution.
s. golani and kailash mehta for the appellant in c.a.
