Dismissed

Ram Kuwar & Anr. v. Bal Kishan & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2012CR/1013/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition under Article 226 challenges the dismissal of an application to appoint a Local Commissioner. The High Court held that since the defendant admitted the existence of construction but its location was the only dispute, the trial court correctly refused appointment as the issue requires judicial adjudication, not a commission report.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed in limine.

Ram Kuwar & Anr. Vs Bal Kishan & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 1013 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 1013 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision : February 16, 2012

¶6

Ram Kuwar and another

¶7

.... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Bal Kishan @ Bale and another .... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. N. K. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶15

Plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 03.01.2012 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham, thereby dismissing plaintiffs' application for appointment of Local Commissioner.

¶16

Plaintiffs' case in their plaint Annexure P-1 is that respondentdefendant no.1 has made encroachment in public street by raising construction. Defendant no.1 has admitted the said construction, but pleaded that it is not in public street.

¶17

Plaintiffs sought appointment of Local Commissioner to report

¶18

C. R. No. 1013 of 2012

¶19

¶20

about the existing construction at the spot. The application was resisted by defendant-respondent no.1. Trial court dismissed the application for appointment of Local Commissioner vide impugned order dated 03.01.2012, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners contended that Local Commissioner can make report as to whether the disputed construction is in public street or not, and therefore, Local Commissioner should have been appointed by the trial court. The contention cannot be accepted. It is for the trial court to adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the disputed construction is in public street or not. This function of the Court cannot be delegated to Local Commissioner. Of course, Local Commissioner can be appointed to report as to what construction exists at the spot. However, there is no dispute about the same. Defendant no.1 has admitted the existence of his construction, but pleaded that the same is in their own land and not in public street. Consequently, no purpose would be served by appointment of Local Commissioner.

¶23

For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that application of plaintiffs for appointment of Local Commissioner has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for

¶24

C. R. No. 1013 of 2012

¶25

¶26

interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is bereft of any merit

¶27

and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶28

February 16, 2012

¶29

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶30

monika

Ram Kuwar & Anr. v. Bal Kishan & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kuwar & Anr. v. Bal Kishan & Anr.

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

Satpal & Anr. Vs Mahavir & Anr.

Chetan and Ors. Vs Narain Singh

Kishan Singh Vs Shankar Singh

Satya Devi & Ors. Vs Joginder Kumar & Ors.

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs Harmail Singh

Bakhshish Kaur @ Seeso Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.