Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANGE RAM versus SMT. WADHAWAI BAI & ORS..

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mange Ram v. Smt. Wadhawai Bai & Ors.. - RSA-578-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1035 (21 February 2006)

RSA No. 578 of 2006 (O&M). (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 578 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 20.2.2006.

Mange Ram .....Appellant.

Versus

Smt. Wadhawai Bai and others. ....Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri C.B. Goel, Advocate,

for the appellant.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration challenging the orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was found to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

It has been found that the appellant has not challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority or the orders passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Sirsa or the Financial Commissioner and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in terms of Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1972, the successor Act to Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the authorities under the Act, have not taken into consideration the choice of the landlord in respect of the permissible area, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities under the Act, are not sustainable in law.

However, the said argument is not tenable in view of the fact RSA No. 578 of 2006 (O&M). (2)

that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been specifically barred. The Civil Court can examine only the decision making process and not the decision itself. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.

No substantial question of law arises.

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.