Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURJIT SINGH versus HARNEK SINGH & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surjit Singh v. Harnek Singh & Anr. - RSA-84-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1032 (21 February 2006)

RSA No. 84 of 2006 (O&M). (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 84 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 20.2.2006

Surjit Singh ...Appellant.

Versus

Harnek Singh and another. ...Respondents.

Respondent.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant nos. 1 and 2 from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute, was dismissed.

It is the case of the plaintiff that he is lessee in possession since 4.6.1994. It is alleged that defendant nos. 1 and 2 were the earlier lessees. In the proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, an order of ejectment was passed against the said defendants. In terms of the said order, defendant nos. 1 and 2 were evicted but the Panchayat has handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff vide Resolution dated 4.6.1994. Inspite of such handing over of the possession to the plaintiff, defendant nos. 1 and 2 are threatening to illegally and forcibly enter over the suit land and take forcible possession thereof. The said suit was filed on or about 19.7.1994.

RSA No. 84 of 2006 (O&M). (2)

Both the Courts have concurrently found that though the land in dispute was leased out to the plaintiff in the year 1993-94 for one year, but the Panchayat could not get the possession of the suit land from the earlier lessees. The possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff on 4.6.1994 for one year in order to compensate the plaintiff for the lease created for an earlier year. But even after the expiry of the lease period on 18.5.1995, the plaintiff has not delivered the possession to the Panchayat, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction.

Admittedly, the lease was gratned to the plaintiff in the year 1993-94 but made effective from 4.6.1994 was not extended after the expiry of one year. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction in respect of the suit land after the expiry of lease period. A Full Bench of this Court in Roshan alias Roshan Lal and others Vs. the Secretary, Govt. of Haryana and others 1998(2) PLJ 260, has held that after the expiry of lease period, the lessee becomes an unauthorised occupant.

In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in the present appeal.

Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.

20.2.2006 (Hemant Gupta)

ds Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.