Dismissed

Bikkar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Apr 2015CRM-M/13670/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner contended that despite a civil decree in his favor, a respondent was illegally interfering with his land possession. The Court held that the matter pertained to civil litigation and noted no direction could be issued under Section 482 CrPC in such disputes.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail available remedies under law.

Bikkar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

CRM-M-13670-2015

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-13670 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 29, 2015.

¶5

Bikkar Singh

¶6

......PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

....RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

¶13

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The dispute pertains to a piece of land bearing Khewat no.41/41, Khatauni no.44, Khasra no.13007/1/2227 measuring 4 Bighas, 13 Biswas, 8 Biswansis situated in village Killa Raipur. The petitioner has described the matter in dispute in para 2 of the petition as follows:-

¶16

“2. That the brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a owner of land comprised in Khewat no.41/41, Khatauni no.44, Khasra no.13007/1/2227 measuring 4 B, 13 Bis, 8 Biswa, situated in his village. Adjoining the above said land of the petitioner, a bricks kiln has been installed and in running condition by respondent no.4-Darshan Singh son of Lal Singh. For the last 2-3 years, the respondent

¶17

SACHIN MEHTA 2015.04.29 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-13670-2015

¶19

-2-

¶20

no.4 started harassing illegally to the petitioner by putting bricks bat in the passage of the land of the petitioner. When the petitioner objected (to) the illegal act of the respondent no.4 and requested him (not) to do so, then he stated that he got conducted demarcation of this land from Halqa Kanugo, whereas in the said alleged demarcation was not done in the presence of the petitioner.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the petitioner seeking relief of permanent injunction relating to the suit property was decreed in his favour but despite the decree, respondent No.4 is interfering in his possession regarding which he has moved an application (Annexure P-5) to SHO, Police Station Dehlon.

¶22

The dispute pertains to the civil litigation regarding which no direction can be issued under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is at liberty to avail all the remedies available to him under law.

¶23

This petition has no merits. Dismissed.

¶24

( SURINDER GUPTA ) April 29, 2015. JUDGE Sachin M.

¶25

SACHIN MEHTA 2015.04.29 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Bikkar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikkar Singh 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

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Deepak Khurana Vs Manish Khurana

Darshansingh Vs State Ofpb.

Ashok Kumar Vs Surinder Singh & Ors.

Kamalpreet Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.