Dismissed

Ram Phal and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2016CR/1939/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the revision petition challenging the executing court's dismissal of objections to a local commissioner's report on land demarcation. The court held the objection was merely a tactic to delay execution and found no illegality.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the executing court's order regarding the demarcation report.

Ram Phal and Ors. Vs Mohinder Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

C.R. No.1939 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

C.R. No.1939 of 2016

¶5

Date of Decision.05.08.2016

Ramphal and others

.......Petitioners

Vs.

Mohinder Singh ........Respondent Present: Mr. Jarnail S. Saneta, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

-.-

¶15

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶16

The petitioners-judgment debtors are aggrieved of the dismissal of their objections by the Executing Court qua the report of the Tehsildar regarding the demarcation, appointed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court for execution of the final decree.

¶17

Mr. Jarnail Singh Saneta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report of the Tehsildar qua three pacca points is conjectural and therefore, it is incorrigible to believe the aforementioned report.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, appraised the paper book and of the view that the local commissioner's report was consented by the petitioners as no objection had been raised. All the parties agreed to the same. The relevant portion of the report reads thus:-

¶19

“According to revenue record, it is found correct. All the present persons also agreed that the above three points are correct. So, in the presence of all the persons, according to

¶20

C.R. No.1939 of 2016 -2-

¶21

revenue record, demarcation of khasra No.74//6 measuring 0- 3 marla had been done through 100 feet tap. Special Burji were prepared on all the corners of Killa No.74//6. In this way, during demarcation it is found that in North side of Khara No.74//6, house has been constructed in 6x27 feet by Sugan Chand s/o Ram Sarup and 27 x 27 feet by Ram Phal s/o Afla. As per revenue record for the year 2007, Harish Kumar and Rishi Parkash sons of Satya Narain s/o Purna has been shown owner in equal parts in Khewat No.282, Khasra No.74/6. Demarcation report is presented.”

¶22

I am of the view that objection to the above-mentioned report is nothing else but a tactic to delay the execution of the final decree. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order passed by the Court below. No ground for interference is made out. The revision petition is dismissed.

¶23

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 05, 2016 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No

Ram Phal and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Phal and Ors. v. Mohinder 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

Hari Singh Vs Punjab State and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs Satish Kumar

Manjit Kaur Vs Balwinder Singh @ Baljinder Singh

Sheetal Vs Rohit and Ors.

Baljit Singh and Ors. Vs Murti Shri Vishnu Avtar Baaba Ram Dev and Anr.

Hardev Ram Vs Arjun Dass etc.