High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Som Chand Katia v. Bathinda Improvement Trust & Anr - CR-5243-2004  RD-P&H 1359 (2 March 2006)
CIVIL REVISION NO.5243 OF 2004 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 14, 2006
Som Chand Katia
Bathinda Improvement Trust and another
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr.Ashish Chopra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Rakesh Garg, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
The plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated October 13, 2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Bathinda, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of the Local Commissioner and then for taking his report for measuring Khasra No.2389, has been dismissed.
2. In this case, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land comprising in Khasra No.2389, which is in excess than the acquired land. To ascertain the said excess land from the said Khasra number, the petitioner filed the aforesaid application for appointment of the Local Commissioner and for taking his report. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court while observing that CIVIL REVISION NO.5243 OF 2004 (O&M) (2) Khasra No.2389 is measuring 73 bighas 18 biswas. Out of the said Khasra number, 9 bighas 13 biswas of land was acquired by the Provincial Government for construction of the road. The remaining land measuring 64 bighas 5 biswas was further acquired by the Union of India in the year 1978.
Initially the payment was made to the land owner only in respect of 61 bighas 5 biswas of land. When the land owner approached the Court under the Land Acquisition Act for payment of remaining 3 bighas of land, the Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide order Ex.D10 directed to make payment of the remaining 3 bighas of land to the land owner as the notification of acquisition was issued in respect of the entire area of land measuring 64 bighas 5 biswas comprising in Khasra No.2389. The trial Court has observed that from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that when the entire land of Khasra No.2389 has been acquired by different agencies, then there was no land left in the said Khasra number. In that situation, the appointment of the Local Commissioner and for seeking his report about the excess area of the said Khasra number does not arise.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on earlier occasion, the Local Commissioner was appointed, who submitted the report, but for want of record, the demarcation could not be effected. Counsel further contends that even subsequently respondent-Bathinda Improvement Trust had issued a notification for acquiring 3 biswas of land from the said Khasra number. Therefore, in view of these facts, the trial Court should have appointed the Local Commissioner to ascertain the alleged excess area from the said Khasra number.
4. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that when the entire area of 64 bighas 5 biswas comprising in Khasra No.2389 CIVIL REVISION NO.5243 OF 2004 (O&M) (3) was acquired by the Union of India, then no area from the said Khasra number was left, and the trial Court was right while refusing for appointment of the Local Commissioner to ascertain the excess area. The learned counsel submitted that if Bathinda Improvement Trust wants to acquire certain area of the said Khasra number, then it is acquiring the land belonging to respondent No.2 and only on that ground it cannot be presumed that there was excess area from the said Khasra number.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Once entire area of Khasra No.2389 has been acquired by different Government agencies and the entire compensation regarding the said area has been paid to the land owner, then in my opinion, the trial Court has rightly refused to appoint the Local Commissioner to ascertain the excess area in the said Khasra number. In this situation, there cannot be any excess area from the said Khasra number. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the superintending powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order will not effect the merits of the case before the trial Court.
February 14, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.