Dismissed¶¶25

Ram Chander (Deceased) through Lrs and Others v. Fateh Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2025RA-RS/24/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; single judge Anil Kshetarpal; review application RS-24/2025 (O&M) in RSA 647/2025 dismissed on 08.05.2025; review of in-limine dismissal dated 01.03.2025; right of passage to agricultural land; 50 years' user of disputed passage; Local Commissioner report on mutually-consented passage obstructed by appellant; alternative passage contention rejected; eight days' delay condoned (CM-5077-C-2025); no statutes or case law cited; non-reportable value limited to review-jurisdiction practice.

What did the court decide?

Delay of eight days in filing the review application condoned (CM-5077-C-2025 allowed); the review application itself dismissed with no further relief. ¶¶25

Ram Chander (Deceased) through Lrs and Others Vs Fateh Singh and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

148

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

Review Application No. RS-24 of 2025 (O&M) In Regular Second Appeal No. 647 of 2025

¶4

Date of Decision: 08.05.2025

¶5

Ram Chander (Deceased) through his Legal Representatives

¶6

… Applicant/Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Fateh Singh and Others

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

¶11

Present: Mr. Yogesh Jangra, Advocate for the applicant/appellant(s).

¶12

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

¶13

CM-5077-C-2025

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of eight days in filing the review application is condoned.

¶15

RA-RS-24-2025

¶16

The applicant/appellant seeks review of order dated 01.03.2025. The appeal was dismissed in limine .

¶17

The learned counsel representing the review applicant/appellant has been heard at length.

¶18

The dispute is with regard to passage to the agricultural land of the plaintiff (respondent No.1). The learned counsel representing the review applicant contends that the plaintiff (respondent No.1) himself has access

¶19

through an alternative passage.

¶20

This Court has considered the submissions of the learned

¶21

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ2025.05.12 16:57 5. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

Review Application No. RS-24 of 2025 (O&M) 2 In Regular Second Appeal No. 647 of 2025

¶23

counsel representing the review applicant/appellant.

¶24

Both the Courts below have found that the parties have been using the disputed passage for the last 50 years. Moreover, the Local Commissioner also found that there was a parcel of land which was being used by the parties as a passage with mutual consent but that has been obstructed by the review applicant/appellant.

¶25