Civil Revision dismissed. The High Court held that the trial court was justified in refusing to dismiss the suit for redemption as infructuous due to government land acquisition, noting that while compensation is determined by the Collector, the Civil Court must still decide the title to determine the compensation basis.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Civil Revision No.1088 of 2011 (O&M).
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Date of Decision: February 21, 2011.
Civil Revision No.1088 of 2011 (O&M).
Mahender and others
... Petitioners.
VERSUS
Parsadi and others
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
MOHINDER PAL, J.
Defendants-petitioners are aggrieved against the
order passed by the trial Court whereby their prayer for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for redemption with consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit land as infructuous was declined.
-2-
Civil Revision No.1088 of 2011 (O&M).
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned order, I do not see any reason warranting interference in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. Land in dispute was acquired by the Haryana Government during the pendency of the suit and the defendants made an application for dismissal of the suit as infructuous on the ground that the only question which now remains is with regard to compensation and that is to be determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. No doubt the question regarding compensation is to be determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, but compensation has to be paid by the concerned authorities on the basis of title to the suit land and question of title can only be decided by the Civil Court. The trial Court was, thus, justified in declining the prayer of the defendants-petitioners for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents as infructuous.
Dismissed.
February 21, 2011. ak
( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in declining the prayer to dismiss the suit for redemption as infructuous after the land was acquired by the government during the pendency of the suit.
Whether the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector obviates the need for the Civil Court to decide the question of title.
Mahender and others
Parsadi and others
MOHINDER PAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
