Disposed

Mam Kaur and Anr. v. M/S True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2011CR/5631/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the revision petition by directing the trial court to examine revenue officials as witnesses regarding possession taken under land acquisition proceedings. The High Court found the trial court failed to record that the State Government took possession, remanding for fresh inquiry before deciding the suit's maintainability as a permanent injunction.

What did the court decide?

The revison petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to examine concerned revenue official(s) as witnesses to verify possession taken by the State.

Mam Kaur and Anr. Vs M/S True Zone Buildwell Pvt… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.5631 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: 15^th September, 2011

Mam Kaur and another

… Petitioners

Versus

M/s True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Present revision petition has been filed to assail the impugned order dated 15^th June, 2011 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby application (Annexure P-12) filed by the petitioners praying for dismissal of the suit has been dismissed.

¶13

A perusal of the application (Annexure P-12) reveals that it was pleaded by the petitioners-defendants that the suit land has been acquired by the State of Haryana vide a notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) on 24^th December, 2002. It was further stated that the Land Acquisition Collector had given an award on 21^st December, 2004 and thereafter, the District Judge, Karnal had disposed of the reference made by the land owners for enhancement. It is stated that the

¶14

¶15

Civil Revision No.5631 of 2011 (O&M)

¶16

reference under Section 18 of the Act has been decided by the Court of Ms.Shalini Singh Nagpal, Additional District Judge, Karnal.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon order (Annexure P-7) dated 13^th October, 2008 passed by the High Powered Committee, wherein it was held as under:

¶18

“7. It was observed by the committee that the award was announced in accordance with law on 21.12.2004 and the possession was delivered to HUDA on the same day. This fact is evident from the revenue record, i.e. a copy of rapat roznamcha dated 21.12.2004 wherein the transfer of possession from land owners to HUDA has been recorded. The pleading of the petitioner that the award was announced on 21.12.2004 to save the notification from lapsing is without any basis. The acquisition has been done as per process of law. After the announcement of award, it is for the land owners to take compensation and not taking of compensation is no ground for releasing the acquired land.”

¶19

Counsel has stated that vide impugned order, the Court has formulated following as one of the issues:

¶20

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?

¶21

Counsel has stated that once possession has been taken over by the State of Haryana, the plaintiff’s suit against the petitionersdefendants has been rendered infructuous, as possession will vest with the State of Haryana and Haryana Urban Development Authority had already carved out Sectors. It is submitted by the counsel that the trial of the suit is an exercise in futility and it will be nothing but flogging the dead horse and thus, it will not only amount to wastage of time and

¶22

¶23

Civil Revision No.5631 of 2011 (O&M)

¶24

energy of the Court but will also burden the petitioners-defendants with unnecessary financial implications.

¶25

The trial Court had dismissed the application (Annexure P-12) primarily holding that “However, this plea is not sustainable because it is nowhere revealed on the file that the State Government has taken the possession of the suit property.”

¶26

In view of the above observations made by the trial Court, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to examine the concerned revenue official(s), who had taken possession of the suit land in pursuance of the land acquisition proceedings, as Court witnesses, giving an opportunity to both plaintiff and defendants to cross-examine them. Thereafter, the trial Court will formulate its opinion afresh as to whether the suit should proceed ahead or not on the application to be again filed by the petitioners.

¶27

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶28

September 15, 2011 rps

Mam Kaur and Anr. v. M/S True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mam Kaur and Anr. v. M/S True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagat Singh Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors.

Kamlesh Rani Vs Sukhdev Nagpal & Ors.

Sita Ram and Ors. Vs Om Parkash

Balwinder Kaur Vs Ranjit Kaur and Ors.

Joginder Kaur Vs Chaitanya Kochar

Paramjit Kaur and Anr. Vs Utpal Singh and Ors.