Dismissed

Ajaib Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Nov 2012CWP/12932/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging partition orders regarding agricultural land possession, petitioners had agreed to a land swap but withdrew. The Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's failure to uphold their undertaking and attempt to misuse court process.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; petitioners are open to settling the issue but their withdrawal from court undertaking precludes sympathy.

Ajaib Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 12932 of 2010

¶3

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. *****

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 12932 of 2010 Date of decision: November 06, 2012.

¶5

__*

¶6

Ajaib Singh and others

¶7

....Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and others.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

__*

¶12

CORAM: HON;BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶13

1. Whether Reports of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

__*

¶17

Present: Shri Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶18

Shri Aman Bahri, Addl: A.G.Punjab, for the State.

¶19

Shri B.S.Mann, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 to 8 and 10 to 12.

¶20

¶21

RANJIT SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶22

The predecessor in interest of the petitioners moved an application for partition of his share in the joint land. The petitioners have now filed the present petition challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Financial Commissioner, whereby their objections to 'Naksha' Arra have been rejected. The contention of the petitioners is that khasra No.440, which is in their possession has not been given to them. Further, a part of Khasra No.441 measuring 2 bighas is in possession of the petitioners wherein they have installed their tubewell. The said khasra number has also not been given to the petitioners in partition. The third contention of the petitioners is that they have been given

¶23

Civil Writ Petition No. 12932 of 2010

¶24

¶25

khasra numbers 931, 932 and 934 which were having pits as the respondents had sold earth from the same.

¶26

The Commissioner had accepted the revision petition filed by the petitioners and had directed the Assistant Collector to decide the matter afresh by taking into consideration the orders passed by this Court in the earlier litigation. It was further observed by the Commissioner that 'Naksha' “Arra” had been prepared without taking into consideration the physical possession and the jamabandi. The Financial Commissioner reversed the order without even dealing with the reasons given by the Commissioner.

¶27

It is relevant to mention that in the revenue record, the petitioners are shown in possession of Khasra No. 440 as well as in 2 bighas of land in Khasra No. 441. The tubewell of the petitioners is also mentioned in the khasra Girdawari. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner is, accordingly, challenged before this Court through the present writ petition.

¶28

When the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on October 26, 2010, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that if Khasra No. 440/2 and part of Khasra No. 441 are added to the petitioner, then in lieu of that they are ready to forego equal portion of such other land that is acceptable to the private respondents.

¶29

While issuing notice of motion by this Court vide order dated October 26, 2010, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession till further orders.

¶30

When the case came up for hearing on July 26, 2012, Mr. G.S.Nagra, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 12 made a statement before this Court on the basis of the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners. On instructions from the private respondents, the counsel submitted that the private respondents are ready to give complete

¶31

Civil Writ Petition No. 12932 of 2010

¶32

¶33

khasra No. 440/1 and 441/2 to the petitioners and in lieu of that they are ready to accept Khasra No. 931. Counsel for the petitioners, at that stage, submitted that issue can be sorted out in case both the counsel sit together and reach some amicable solution.

¶34

When the case came up for hearing in the morning, both the counsel agreed that the matter had been settled and the case be taken up after lunch, just to record the agreed terms.

¶35

What was pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of issuance of notice of motion was that Khasra No. 440//2 and a part of Khasra No. 441 are allotted to the petitioners. It would save their tubewell situated in Khasra No. 441. In return, the petitioners are ready to forego land from such other land as may be acceptable to the private respondents.

¶36

The learned counsel for the respondents had agreed to this proposal and in lieu had agreed to accept the land in Khasra No. 931.

¶37

At this stage, if this plea is not acceptable to the petitioners, they do not deserve any other consideration, as they are backing out from their undertaking given before this Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion. The petitioners are seen misusing the process of court only.

¶38

The writ petition is dismissed. Still it would be open for the petitioners to settle the issue if it is possible.

¶39

(RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶40

November 06, 2012. MALIK

Ajaib Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaib Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Shashi Kant Prasad Vs State of Haryana

Pali Kaur @ Pal Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Tek Chand Vs State of Haryana

Shinderpal Singh @ Shindu Vs State of Punjab

Gram Panchayat Anwli Vs State of Haryana & Ors.