Held that the civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of objections to the Local Commissioner's valuation report did not suffer from any infirmities. The revision was dismissed.
Valuation report and dismissal of objections affirmated.
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
66
Noe 4079 of 2011
1
L 0 0 I C5 I Z e
0 Z CO ma Z
Il
1
0
Civil Revision
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No 4079 of 2011 O S Ml Date of decisione 07Il2011
MangeRam
Petitioner
Versus
LaIu
Respondent
CORAM HONBLE MS JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Presentl Mr Kul Bhushan Sharma Advocate for the petitioner
RITU BAHRI 0
This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for settingaside the order dated 1232011 Annexure P wherebythe objectionsfiled by the petitioner againstthe report oftheIocal commissioner assessing the value of the house in question have been dismissed
The pIaintifffi Ied a su it for perma nent i njunction on 222010 64nnexure P restraining the defendants from a1ienati ng the house bu i Iton Eastern portion of Plot No286 and not to hand over the possessionto any third person other than
Rashmi JOYTI RANI the 2013.01.17 11: 59True Scannedplaintiff in terms of compromisedated 2132009 arrived 2016.03.28 16:23 at Copy Of the I attest to the accuracy and Original integrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh between the parties in the suit No374 of 2008 In that suit the
67
V
Civil Revision No079 of 2011
2
jaL 0 0 0 I C5
Z 2 r Z C3 Z 00 SmW Z
plaintiffhad pleadedthat he was owner in possession of plot No286 measuring1Kanal comprisedi Khewat No 184 situated ill the revenue estate of VillageJainpur TehsiI and District Sonepat to the extent of 518 share Plaintiffs case was that he is the owner of the plot and had allowed the defendant being an old manto Iive in the house built in half portion of the above stated home towards East as a Iicensee in the year 2001 On an earlier occasion the defendanthad tried to sell this built up portion of this house and plaintiffhad fileda suit bearingNo74 of2008on 17102008 In that suit compromise dated 21 2009 64nnexureP was arrived at between the parties The defendant had agreednot to sell the bu iItu p portion to anyone else except the pla intiff An a pplication was made by the petitionerfor getting market value assessed of the house The Local Commissioner Junior Engineer MunicipalCouncil Sonepat assessed the market value as Rs 15220001 The petitioner filed objectionsto the report of the LocaI Commissioner which has now been rejected vide order dated 123201 1 64nnexure
Pl
The grievance of the petitionerIS that as per the compromise 6AnnexureP51the defendant had been givena right to Iive in the house The ownershipstiii vested with the plaintiff
The plai ntiff hasa preferentia1 right to pu rchase the constructed
JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23
Rashmi 2013.01.17 11: 59 houseTrue Scannedas per theecompromise Copy Of the Original PHHC,ChandigarhMr KuI Bhushan Sharma Advocate for the petitioner
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
68
V
Civil Revision No079 of 2011
0 0 I C5 I Z C
C3 Z r11 7 Z 0m
3
as the the has argued that per compromise 64nnexureP defendant was given onlya right toIiveinthe house If the defendant proceededto sell the constructed portion he would sell it to the plaintiffas per the market value in the village The Local Commissioner while assessing the market value has included the cost of the plot which has enhance the market value of the constructed area As per the compromisethe plot remained in the name of plaintiffand therefore the market value assessed by the Local Commissioner IS not as per the compromiseeffected between the parties
As
per the compromise 4nnexure P59 the plaintiff gavehalfshareofhisplottotherespondentdefendantinwhich he has constructed his house from his own money The respondentdefendantLalu in Iieu thereof gave one Pucca house situated within the abadi deh of VillageJainpur to the plaintiff For all intents and purposes the portion given to the defendant was share in the plot and not a Iivingright in the house Itwas agreedthatif respondeneLaluwas to sell the house over the plot givenin exchangehewouldofferthesame to the plaintifeMange Ram accordingto market pricein the village If MangeRam would not pay that amount then any other person could purchase the house Once the petitioner has accepted the terms of the compromiseand the civil suit No374 of 2008 was decided it Rashmi JOYTI RANI does2013.01.17 11: 59True ScannedCopy Of thenot Iie in his mouth to say that onlyIivingrightswere given 2016.03.28 16:23I attest to the accuracy and Original integrity of this document to PHHC,ChandigarhrespondentLaluThe market value has been assessed e
59L
69
V Civil Revision Noe 4079 of 2011
1
4
Rs15220001 by the Local Commissioner The order dated 1232011 64nnexurePl does not suffer from any infirmity
The Civil Revision is dismissed
VijayAsija
0
0
C5
Z
C4
0
C3
Z
C
7
Z
tl
21
5
c
1 y111
C5
T RITU BAHRI JUDGE
JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Rashmi 2013.01.17 11: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order dismissing the applicant's objections to the Local Commissioner's valuation report suffered from infirmities.
Mange Ram
Lalu
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
