Partly allowed

Pawan Kumar v. Neeraj Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Dec 2017RSA/37/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the appeal based on a compromise arrived at between parties before a mediator. Appellant was declared owner of 52.20 Sq. Metres of land. Revenue officer directed to mutate records in appellant's favour.

What did the court decide?

Appellant declared owner of 52.20 Sq. Metres of land; Revenue Officer to mutate records in appellant's favour within four weeks of judgment presentation.

Pawan Kumar Vs Neeraj Kumar — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

RSA No.37 of 2016.

¶3

Date of decision: 01.12.2017.

¶4

Pawan Kumar Versus	…..Appellant.
Neeraj Kumar and others	….Respondents.

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?¹ No For the Appellant : Mr.Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

¶7

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶8

Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to go into the relative merits of the case, save and except, to observe that the defendant is the appellant, who aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, has filed the instant appeal.

¶9

The plaintiff filed a suit for possession and the same was decreed by holding her entitled to a decree of possession on the basis of her title of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 604min/886min, Khasra no.965, measuring 94.34 Sq. Mtrs, situated in Mauza Up Sampada Devi Nagar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and the plaintiff was further held entitled for the possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 965/1 to the extent of 52.20 Sq. Mtrs, more specifically shown in Tatima Tafawat prepared by the Demarcating Officer and placed on record with the demarcation report dated 01.08.2014 having admitted in

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes

¶11

¶12

evidence situated in Mauza Up Sampada Devi Nagar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.

¶13

The appeal filed by the defendant against the aforesaid judgment and decree came to be modified by the learned first appellate Court to the extent that the plaintiff was held entitled to possession on the basis of title of the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.604min/886min, Khasra No. 965/1, measuring 52.20 Sq. Metres only and the demarcation report dated 01.8.2014 and the tatima showing encroachment in Khasra No.965/1 to the extent of 52.20 Sq. Metres was ordered to form part of the decree.

¶14

Aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned first appellate Court whereby it denied the land measuring 52.20 Sq. Metres described above, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

¶15

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2017 on the joint representation of the parties appointed Shri S.C.Sharma, Advocate, as a Mediator and the parties were directed to appear before him.

¶16

The learned Mediator held proceedings from time to time and before end of July, 2017, he was able to persuade upon the parties to arrive at a settlement, as is evident from the order dated 02.08.2017 passed by this Court, which reads thus:-

¶17

“It is represented by learned counsel for the respondents that in principle the compromise has already been arrived at and it is only on account of the fact that the statements had to be recorded and the same could not have been finalized. His statement is taken on record. Registry is directed to list this case before the learned Mediator on 08.08.2017 and thereafter list before the Court on 30.08.2017.”

¶18

¶19

The appeal was listed on 30.08.2017 and on the joint request of the parties was ordered to be listed on 01.12.2017.

¶20

Today, it is jointly represented by both the parties that the matter stands amicably settled before the learned Mediator before whom the respondents have received a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as consideration for relinquishing their claim qua the aforesaid land measuring 52.20 Sq. Metres and would henceforth have no claim on this piece of land which is otherwise in possession of the appellant for the last 18 years and had been enclosed by him by raising a boundary wall.

¶21

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is held to be the owner of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.604min/886min, Khasra No.965/1, measuring 52.20 Sq. Metres as shown in the tatima prepared by the Demarcating Officer and annexed with the report dated 01.08.2014. A copy of the statements made by the parties before the learned Mediator along with order passed by the learned Mediator on 29.11.2017 shall form part and parcel of the decree.

¶22

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶23

Consequent upon the appeal being allowed as aforesaid, the Revenue Officer to mutate the aforesaid land in favour of the appellant within four weeks of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶24

However, before parting, this Court would like to place on record its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the

¶25

¶26

learned Mediator Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate, who as usual, has been instrumental in bringing about an amicable settlement between the parties.

¶27

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ), 1^st December, 2017. Judge. (krt)

Pawan Kumar v. Neeraj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. Neeraj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niku Ram Vs Tulsi Ram

Sumna Devi Vs State of Hp

Anil Kumar Jamwal Vs Reena Devi

Chaman Sharma Vs Bir Sen

State of Hp Vs Kumar Chand

Budhu Ram Vs Thakur Dutt Sharma