Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Faqir Singh v. Municipal Council, Dharamkot & Anr - CR-4132-2001 [2006] RD-P&H 1311 (1 March 2006)

C.R. No. 4132 of 2001 [1]


C.R. No. 4132 of 2001

Date of Decision: March 8, 2006

Faqir Singh



Municipal Council, Dharamkot and another .....Respondents

Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate and

Mr. Sumeer Sachdev, Advocate

for the respondents.



This order shall dispose of six revision petitions being C.R. No. 4132 of 2001, C.R. No. 1976 of 2003, C.R. No. 3085 of 2003, C.R. No. 1977 of 2003, C.R. No. 3434 of 2003 and C.R. No. 3435 of 2003, as the facts in all the cases are identical. For the sale of convenience, the facts are borrowed from C.R. No. 4132 of 2001.

The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court. He filed a suit for declaration claiming that he is the owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated March 16, 1982 and March 25, 1982 executed by the original owners. He also sought a declaration that the order of his eviction passed by the C.R. No. 4132 of 2001 [2]

Collector and dismissal of his appeal by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur were illegal, bad and not binding upon the plaintiff.

The facts which emerge from the record show that vide an order dated September 23, 1998, the present plaintiff had been ordered to be evicted from the property in question by an order passed by the Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur, (exercising the powers of Collector). An appeal filed by the plaintiff against the aforesaid eviction order was dismissed by Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, vide order dated May 13, 1999. Consequently, claiming that he is owner in possession of the suit property and the aforesaid orders were illegal, the plaintiff filed the suit in question. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming ad-interim injunction against his dispossession.

Both the Courts below have held that suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and was barred under the provisions of Section 15 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. Consequently, the prayer for ad-interim injunction was declined by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the aforesaid order was also rejected by the learned first Appellate Court.

The plaintiff has consequently, approached this Court through the present revision petition.

On August 13, 2000, notice of motion was issued in the present case and the following order was passed:-

"Learned counsel states that in view of the instructions dated 8.5.2001 issued by the State Government which have been reproduced in para 11 of the grounds of revision, petitioner is entitled to purchase the said land on payment of price fixed therein.

C.R. No. 4132 of 2001 [3]

Notice of motion for 27.9.2001.

Till further orders, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed."

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record of the case.

Mr. Dheeraj Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- petitioner has argued that in view of the instructions dated May 8, 2001 issued by the State Government, the plaintiff was entitled to purchase the suit land on payment of the price fixed. Consequently, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the plaintiff could not be dispossessed from the suit land till the matter is finally decided by the competent authority in terms of the aforesaid instructions.

There is nothing on the record to show that the plaintiff has, at any point of time, applied to the competent authority for purchasing the land in question in terms of the instructions dated May 8, 2001. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has to first approach the competent authority staking his claim for purchasing the suit land on the basis of the aforesaid instructions.

In these circumstances, the present revision petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the competent authority for purchasing the suit land in terms of the instructions dated May 8, 2001, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is received. On receipt of the aforesaid application from the plaintiff, the competent authority shall decide the aforesaid application by passing a speaking order and keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, within a further period of four months.

Since the dispossession of the plaintiff- petitioner has been stayed vide order dated August 13, 2000, and the aforesaid order has remained operative C.R. No. 4132 of 2001 [4]

for a period of approximately six years, it would be appropriate if the possession of the plaintiff- petitioner is protected till the matter is finally decided by the competent authority, as directed above.

Consequently, it is directed the plaintiff- petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the suit property till a final order is passed by the competent authority, as directed above.

Revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

March 8, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


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


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 |

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