Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Expansion Necessitates Allotment of Sarangpur Land, Chandigarh Administration Directed: High Court Bench Proclaims

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant move aimed at addressing the burgeoning requirements of the judiciary, the High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to allocate land in Sarangpur for the expansion of High Court facilities. The decision came in the wake of the court’s observations about the increasing strength of judges and the corresponding need for more space.

During the hearing of case numbers CWP-PIL-9-2023 (O&M) and CWP-27621-2013 (O&M), the bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta noted the substantial growth in the number of judges and advocates over the past decades. “As on today, the sanctioned strength of the High Court Judges is 85 and there are about 10,000 to 12,000 registered advocates in the High Court,” the bench observed.

Highlighting the historical perspective, the court pointed out that the sanctioned strength of the judges has risen from 9 in 1954 to 85 in 2024. This dramatic increase, along with the projection of a further rise to approximately 140-150 judges in the next 50 years, necessitates a significant expansion of the High Court’s infrastructure.

The proposed expansion includes the allotment of three plots in Sarangpur, comprising two plots of 6 acres each and one plot of 2.86 acres. This allotment is seen as crucial for accommodating the growing number of judges and the administrative staff. The court made it clear that, contrary to the earlier order dated 21.12.2023, the High Court will not relinquish its buildings in Sector 17 and Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.

In its ruling, the court directed the Chandigarh Administration to ensure the allotment of these plots, keeping in mind the future needs of the judiciary. The case is slated for further hearing on 24.01.2024, with the court’s order expected to have significant implications for the judicial infrastructure in Chandigarh.

The High Court’s proactive approach in planning for future requirements highlights the dynamic nature of India’s judicial system and its commitment to adapting to changing circumstances. The decision marks a significant step in ensuring that the judiciary’s infrastructure keeps pace with its evolving needs.

Date of Decision: 19 January 2024

Vinod Dhatterwal and others  Vs. Union of India and others

 

Latest Legal News