Dismissed

(O&M) Har Sukh v. Bhoop Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2013RFA/26/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four reference appeals involving apportionment and compensation for land acquisition were heard. The court held appellants were not aggrieved based on prior precedent regarding occupancy tenants' entitlements and dismissed all appeals.

What did the court decide?

All four reference appeals (RFA No.26/27/28/29 of 1990) were dismissed.

(O&M) Har Sukh Vs Bhoop Singh — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

RFA No.26 of 1990

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RFA No.26 of 1990 Date of Decision.01.02.2013

¶5

Har Sukh son of Shadi son of Kesho, resident of village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon

¶6

.....Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bhoop Singh son of Bholu, resident of village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and others .......Respondents

¶9

2. RFA No.27 of 1990

¶10

Har Sukh son of Shadi son of Kesho, resident of village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon

¶11

.....Appellant

¶12

Versus

¶13

Amar Singh son of Bholu, resident of village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and others .......Respondents

¶14

3. RFA No.28 of 1990

¶15

Har Sukh son of Shadi son of Kesho, resident of village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon

¶16

.....Appellant

¶17

Versus

¶18

Tek Chand son of Chhajju, resident of village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and others .......Respondents

¶19

4. RFA No.29 of 1990

¶20

Har Sukh son of Shadi son of Kesho, resident of village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon

¶21

.....Appellant

¶22

Versus

¶23

Maman son of Sukh Devi, resident of village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and others .......Respondents

¶24

Present: Mr. Pankaj Malwani, Advocate for the appellant.

¶25

None for the respondents.

¶26

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶27

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶28

RFA No.26 of 1990

¶29

-2-

¶30

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶31

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶32

¶33

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant states that in relation to the connected case where the dispute was relating to apportionment, this Court has already held that the persons in possession of the property as occupancy tenants were entitled to the whole compensation and confirmed the judgment of the Reference Court, which found that the chakota money payable to the land owner was as low as 50 paise and therefore, no compensation need be paid to the land owner. I have found that the claimants cannot treat themselves as in any way aggrieved and dismissed the appeal.

¶35

The above appeals would also require to be disposed of on the same line of reasoning and they are all dismissed.

¶36

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶37

February 01, 2013 Pankaj*

(O&M) Har Sukh v. Bhoop Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Har Sukh v. Bhoop Singh

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

Jagmohan Singh Vs Karamjit Singh and Ors.

Indovax Private Limited Vs Sunder Singh

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Parveen @ Parveen Kumar & Anr.

Sahabuddin Vs Saveer etc.

Anguri Devi & Ors. Vs Union of India

M/S Shiv Shakti Timber Industries Vs Angrej Singh & Ors.