Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KULDEEP SINGH versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kuldeep Singh v. Municipal Committee & Anr - RSA-592-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1394 (3 March 2006)

R.S.A. No. 592 of 2004 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 592 of 2004

Date of Decision: March 10, 2006

Kuldeep Singh

.....Appellant

Vs.

Municipal Committee and another

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Gurmit Singh, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate

for the respondents.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. He filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he was a tenant of the Wakf Board and had taken the land on lease from the Wakf Board and had also raised construction on the said land. The plaintiff claimed that his possession was there for the last 30 years as such the defendant Municipal Committee had no concern with the said property nor right to dispossess the plaintiff in any manner.

The defendant Municipal Committee contested the suit. It claimed that the plaintiff was in unauthorised and illegal possession of the land which was owned by the defendant Municipal Committee. However a specific stand was R.S.A. No. 592 of 2004 [2]

taken by the Committee that it would not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property except in due course of law. The possession of the plaintiff in the suit property for a period of 30 years was also denied.

The learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence available on the record, found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. However, it was also held that plaintiff had failed to prove in what capacity he was in such possession. It was also held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property for the last 30 years, as claimed by him. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. An appeal was filed by him before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court reaffirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed.

At the outset, Mr. Ashok Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant Municipal Committee has stated that in view of the stand taken by the Committee in the written statement that it shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, except in due course of law, directions can bee issued by this Court that the defendant Committee shall not dispossess the plaintiff except in due course of law.

In view of the fair stand taken by Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the Committee, the present Regular Second Appeal is disposed of and it is directed that the defendant Committee shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, except in due course of law.

March 10, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay 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.