Partly allowed

Resham Singh v. Surjit Kaur etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2011CWP/6373/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition partly, setting aside an order dated 20.05.1986. The matter was remitted to the Financial Commissioner to decide afresh on mutation based on conflicting decrees relevant to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.05.1986 is set aside; the matter is remitted to Financial Commissioner to decide afresh and direct recording of mutation based on relevant decrees.

Resham Singh Vs Surjit Kaur etc. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.6373 of 1988 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.6373 of 1988 Date of Order: 14.03.2011

¶3

Resham Singh(deceased) through his legal representatives

¶4

..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Surjit Kaur and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶9

Present:Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. I.S.Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No.6.

¶11

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner lays challenge to orders dated 23.12.1981 and 20.05.1986, passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and the Financial Commissioner, Appeals Punjab.

¶13

The short point that arises for consideration is whether mutation should be sanctioned on the basis of judgment and decree dated 24.07.1978, pressed into service by the petitioner (since deceased) represented through his legal representatives or on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 09.05.1980, passed in favour of respondent no.6. In the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner, the suit has been decreed against

¶14

Civil Writ Petition No.6373 of 1988 -2-

¶15

respodnents no.1 to 5 and dismissed against respondent no.6 whereas in the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent no.6, the petitioner is not a party. It appears that these judgments and decrees were not brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner or if brought to his notice, were not considered.

¶16

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order 20.05.1986 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Appeal-II, Punjab, to decide the petition afresh and in accordance with law. While deciding the revision, the Financial Commissioner shall take into consideration the effect of these judgments and decrees and direct the recording of a mutation, in accordance with law.

¶17

Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commercial,Appeal-II, Punjab, on 28.04.2011.

¶18

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶19

March 14, 2011 nt

Resham Singh v. Surjit Kaur etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resham Singh v. Surjit Kaur etc.

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

Subhash Chader & Ors. Vs the St of Pb & Ors.

Sandeep Kumar & Others Vs Union of India and Ors.

Balraj Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Rajinder Singh Siwatch Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ram Phal Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Monika Sahni @ Monika Kaushal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.