Disposed

Naresh Kumar v. Zile Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2018RSA/6636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court order maintains status quo regarding a property dispute while proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 are pending. The court directs authorities to decide within four months and allows the appeal in a separate commercial matter.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of status quo until the competent authority passes order under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

Naresh Kumar Vs Zile Singh and Others — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.6636 of 2016 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.6636 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Order: 11.12.2018

Naresh Kumar

..Appellant

Versus

Zile Singh and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶11

Present: Mr. N.S.Panwar, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. J.S.Dahiya, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana

¶14

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

¶15

On 19.12.2016, notice of motion was issued after noticing the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant, which is extracted as

¶16

under:-

¶17

“ Contends that simplicitor suit is for injunction and not for title. On the basis of documentary evidence brought on record and noticed by the Courts below, Courts below found the possession of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff to be that of gair marusi.

¶18

He further submits that possession can always be taken in accordance with law and not through forcibly interference. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment rendered by Hob'ble Supreme Court in

¶19

NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

RSA No.6636 of 2016 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

Rame Gowda (D) LRs V/s Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and another” 2004(1) SCC 769.

¶23

Notice of motion for 30.05.2017.

¶24

In the meantime, status quo qua the suit property as it exists today shall be maintained.”

¶25

On 19.09.2018, Sub Division Officer (Civil), Sonepat, was directed to inspect the spot and submit a report. A status report was filed admitting that the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the property.

¶26

Today Mr. Prashant Panwar, IAS, Sub Division Officer (Civil), Sonepat, is present in person and has stated that proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961') as applicable to the State of Haryana have been initiated against the plaintiff-appellant.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant also does not dispute this

¶28

position.

¶29

The property in dispute is alleged to be “Shamilat” property. It is expected that the authority before whom proceedings have been initiated under the Act of 1961, would expeditiously decide the proceedings but not later than 4 months from today.

¶30

Since, proceedings have been initiated, therefore, recourse to the law has already been adopted by the authorities. Till then, parties are directed to maintain status-quo. However, this interim protection granted is only till order is passed by the competent authority and this order shall not be used to stall the proceedings already initiated. Sub Division Officer (Civil), Sonepat, who is present in court, has been impressed upon to ensure the speedy disposal of the proceedings under the Act of 1961.

¶31

NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

-3-

¶33

RSA No.6636 of 2016 (O&M)

¶34

In view of the above, the regular second appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Needless to say that the observations made by this court would not adversely effect the rights of the parties.

¶36

C.M.No.12286-C-2017

¶37

Prayer in this application is for bringing on record the legal representatives of Dimana, respondent no.4 and Mahender, respondent no.10.

¶38

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The legal representatives mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application are brought on record for the purpose of prosecuting this appeal only.

¶39

Amended memorandum of parties filed along with the application is taken on record.

¶40

December 11, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶41

NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Naresh Kumar v. Zile Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar v. Zile Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation Faridabad

Inder Singh etc. Vs Hatti Singh & Ors.

Suksham Lata @ Kusum Lata & Anr. Vs Jagdish Ram

Balbir Singh and Ors. Vs Kewal Krishan and Anr.

Naib Singh etc. Vs Gagan Gopal & Anr.

Kewal Krishan Vs Roshan Lal & Ors.