A civil revision dismissed where the High Court held that no interference is warranted as the Additional District Judge correctly found the petitioner failed to prove entitlement or title to the acquired land.
Revision petition dismissed; impugned order of Additional District Judge upheld.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4061 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15th September, 2011
Balwinder Kaur
… Petitioner
Versus
Ranjit Kaur and others
… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Gill, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. N.S. Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.5 and 6.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present revision petition has been filed against order dated 9th May, 2009, whereby Additional District Judge, Patiala had dismissed application filed by Balwinder Kaur-petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the reference pending before him.
Balwinder Kaur had pleaded that the land owners had executed an agreement to sell dated 15th November, 1994 in her favour qua the agricultural land and they had also delivered its possession. Furthermore, she had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the land owners that they should not interfere with her possession.
It is stated that during the pendency of proceedings, land was acquired by the State Government. The Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala had dismissed the application filed under Order I rule 10 CPC by observing as under:
2
Civil Revision No.4061 of 2009 (O&M)
“There is no dispute about the proposition of law enunciated in the above said judgment but in the instant case, the appellant Balwinder Kaur has not been able to show her entitlement to apportionment of compensation in any manner, because she has not been able to substantiate that the petitioner party of the agreement dated 15.11.1994 has given her any right, title or interest to the acquired land or not. She could have proved her title or interest if the sale deed has been executed in her favour by dint of the above said agreement. She could have also shown her entitlement even if she would have placed on record any document to show that she had filed suit for specific performance against the petitioner deceased Inder Pal Singh. In the above absence of any such documentary evidence, I do not think that the applicant Balwinder Kaur has got any right or title in this case, so as to contest apportionment. So, the application filed by Balwinder Kaur is dismissed. To come upon 21.5.2009 for evidence.”
After perusing the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the same suffers from no infirmity. The reasons stated by the Additional District Judge, Patiala are sound in the eyes of law. It was not brought into the notice of the Court that the petitioner had filed any suit for specific performance against the deceased Inderpal Singh within the period of limitation. All rights flow to the petitioner from the alleged agreement to sell dated 15th November, 1994, a photostat copy of which was furnished before the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala.
Validity of the agreement to sell in itself is a question.
Hence, no interference is warranted in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, anything said herein shall
3
Civil Revision No.4061 of 2009 (O&M)
not be construed as an expression qua the rights of the parties on merits
of the case.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE
September 15, 2011
rps
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's dismissal of an application to be impleaded as a party due to lack of proof of title or interest.
Whether a sale agreement to sell is sufficient to confer a right to claim compensation without a registered deed or specific performance suit.
Whether the impugned order suffers from any infirmity requiring appellate interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balwinder Kaur
Ranjit Kaur
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
