Dismissed

Sita Ram v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2010CR/4252/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revision petition seeking to disallow the payment of land compensation to the owner of a prior sale deed, which the petitioner alleged was executed fraudulently to defeat his subsequent sale. The court held that without a prior finding by a competent court declaring the prior sale deed illegal, the petitioner could not succeed.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was held to have no merit and was dismissed. The order of the Additional District Judge allowing Mohinder Singh to claim compensation stands affirmed.

Sita Ram Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R. No. 4252 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.R. No. 4252 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision : August 09, 2010

¶6

Sita Ram son of Siri Ram

¶7

.... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

.... Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

¶13

Present : Mr. Jatinder J.C.Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

¶15

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of the order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa, whereby the objections preferred by the petitioner dated 15.03.2010 on disbursement of compensation to Mohinder Singh son of Mithu Singh, have been dismissed.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner contends that Mithu Singh son of Bachan Singh executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner relating to land measuring 13 Kanal 11 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 71//13 (8-0), 19/1 (5-11), situated in Village Bannawala Tehsil Mansa vide registered sale deed dated 10.02.2006. Another sale deed was executed by Mithu Singh son of Bachan Singh in favour of his son Mohinder Singh relating to land measuring 6 Kanal 9 Marlas. He contends that some area of the land sold to the petitioner also found mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour

¶18

C.R. No. 4252 of 2010

¶19

¶20

of Mohinder Singh. A fraud has been played on the petitioner by Sh. Mithu Singh-respondent No. 3 and accordingly, he has been deprived of the amount of compensation for the area measuring 4 Kanal 16 Marlas. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioner was entitled to the compensation for this 4 Kanal 16 Marlas of land, which has been wrongly paid to Sh. Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 5.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner, however, could not dispute the fact that the sale deed executed by Mithu Singh in favour of Mohinder Singh was prior in time to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. He also could not dispute the fact that his sale deed has yet not been either challenged in any proceedings nor any criminal proceeding has been initiated with regard to the assertion that the fraud has been played on the petitioner.

¶22

The learned Court below has returned a finding in its order dated 25.03.2010, which reads as follows:-

¶23

“ The main objection of the applicant is that the sale deed executed by Mithu Singh in favour of his son Mohinder Singh is with the intention to defraud him. But it is not disputed that the sale deed executed by Mithu Singh in favour of Mohinder Singh was prior to the sale deed in favour of Gurdev Singh and subsequent sale deed in favour of the applicant. The applicant has not challenged in Civil Court the sale deed executed by Mithu Singh and there is no finding of any competent Court that the sale deed executed by Mithu Singh in favour of Mohinder Singh is illegal or void. As such Mohinder Singh got title in the land acquired and he became entitled to compensation.”

¶24

0The above reproduced finding recorded by the learned Additional District

¶25

¶26

C.R. No. 4252 of 2010

¶27

Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa is in

¶28

accordance with the evidence on record which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶29

Finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same

¶30

stands dismissed.

¶31

August 09, 2010 pj

¶32

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

Sita Ram v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Manjit Singh Dhir Vs State of Haryana etc.

Harish Chander Balmiki Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Santosh @ Nihal Kaur Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tcl Rohtak and Ors.

Ram Chander Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Shiv Nandan Lal Arora Vs Rohit Maini etc.