Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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