Dismissed

Chawli and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2014RSA/3651/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants, legal representatives of Sanwal Ram, filed a second appeal after their suit declaring them as small land owners was dismissed on jurisdiction grounds due to advancement of time. In court, counsel withdrew the appeal to avoid unnecessary litigation, and the court proceeded to dismiss it.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; no costs imposed.

Chawli and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.3651 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.3651 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:05.05.2014

¶5

Smt. Chawli and others

¶6

....Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶11

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶12

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

¶15

Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl.A.G.Haryana.

¶16

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

¶17

This is plaintiffs' second appeal, appellants are the legal representatives of one Sanwal Ram son of Shri Ganesha who was allegedly small land owner. On 08.07.1980, while deciding the surplus case of Sanwal Ram, some land was declared surplus, Sh. Sanwal Ram and his son Lakshmi Narain filed an appeal before the Collector who remanded back the case on 17.02.1981. Thereafter, the competent authority vide order dated 19.8.1981 declared Sanwal Ran and his son Lakshmi Narain as small land owners. On the complaint made by Jagmal son of Pat Ram, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 22.05.1990, set aside the

¶18

Kadian Savita 2014.05.09 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

RSA No.3651 of 2009 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

order dated 19.8.1981. In the instant suit filed by the appellants seeking declaration that they were owners in possession in equal shares of the suit land being legal heirs of Sanwal Ram and are small land owners but the land has been declared surplus at the hands of Sanwal Ram son of Ganesha by the order of Prescribed Authority, Sirsa on 8.7.1980 and also the order of Financial Commissioner on 22.05.1990 which are hit by principles of natural justice being against mandatory provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. Further consequential relief of permanent injunction has been sought by the appellants in the instant suit. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. However, finding was recorded that before declaring the land surplus, appellants were duly served and despite service they had not put in appearance.

¶22

Appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court dated 10.10.2008, was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 9.6.2009.

¶23

Still not satisfied, appellants have filed the instant appeal. At this stage, it may be noticed that admittedly, the appellants had filed the civil suit challenging the order dated 08.07.1980 of the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 22.5.1990 of the Financial Commissioner by filing a civil suit which

¶24

Kadian Savita 2014.05.09 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

RSA No.3651 of 2009 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.1992 by the then Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa and appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by Sh. G.L.Goel, the then Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.1996 (Ex.P18).

¶28

In view of the aforesaid fact, it is not in dispute and counsel for the appellants was at loss to argue as how the instant suit at the hands of appellants who are laying claim to the suit property through Sh. Sanwal Ram was competent, in view of the Civil Court decree dated 14.5.1992 and 2.4.1996.

¶29

Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellants on instructions from Laxmi Narain-appellant No.7, who is present in the Court seeks to withdraw the present appeal.

¶30

Though this appeal should have been dismissed with costs as the appellants have filed the suit unnecessarily which has resulted into wastage of Court's precious time, yet keeping in view the fair stand taken by the counsel for the appellants, this Court is not imposing any costs.

¶31

Dismissed as withdrawn.

¶32

May 05, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE

¶33

Kadian Savita 2014.05.09 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Chawli and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chawli and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banta Singh Vs Thana Singh and Ors.

Mange Ram & Anr. Vs Het Ram

Ranjeet Kaur Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.

Chauthmal Sharma Vs Uhbvn Ltd. and Ors.

Anandpur Jalbera Coop. Credit and Service Vs J S Saini and Ors.

Nasruddin and Ors. Vs Mehmooda and Ors.