Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.OM WATI versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt.Om Wati v. The State of Haryana & Ors. - CWP-3637-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1599 (9 March 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

Civil Writ Petition No.3637 of 2006.

Date of decision : 10.3.2006.

Smt.Om Wati vs. The State of Haryana and others.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Narang.

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Kiran Anand Lall.

Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal,Advocate,for the petitioner.

-----

Judgment

Kiran Anand Lall,J.

Claiming herself to be owner in possession of the land in question on the basis of sale deed Annexure P1, dated 1.12.1989, Om Wati petitioner has sought the quashing of two notifications viz. Annexure P5 dated 20.4.1990 and Annexure P6 dated 18.4.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, and also the judgment and decree dated 6.8.2004 (Annexure P3) of the civil court.

The details of the case, in our view, are not required to be gone into, as a civil suit filed by the petitioner against respondent no.3 herein, claiming her ownership and possession over the land involved in this petition, already stands dismissed by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 6.8.2004, Annexure P3 and P3/A respectively wherein it was held that she had failed to prove her ownership/ possession over the disputed land comprised in rectangle no.100 killa no.17 and also the fact that the house standing thereon was constructed by her. The verdict of civil court had attained finality as it was not challenged in appeal. That being so, the petitioner cannot now claim herself to be owner of the land in Civil Writ Petition No.3637 of 2006. (2) *****

question nor she can seek quashing of the notifications pertaining to acquisition thereof.

In so far as the prayer pertaining to the quashing of the civil court judgment and the decree are concerned, the same is meaningless. The only mode by which a judgment/ decree can be challenged is, by filing an appeal or revision, as the case may be, and not by way of seeking a writ of certiorari.

Otherwise too, the writ suffers from the vice of delay and latches also, as the notifications and the judgment and decree under challenge pertain to the years 1990, 1991 and 1994 respectively.

For the reasons stated above, petition is liable to be dismissed, in limine, and we order accordingly.

(Kiran Anand Lall)

Judge.

10.3.2006. (J.S.Narang)

vs 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.