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


Kewal Krishan v. Tejinder Singh Bittu - COCP-444-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4319 (18 July 2006)

COCP No.444 of 2005 -: 1 :-


COCP No.444 of 2005

Date of decision: July 11, 2006.

Kewal Krishan



Tejinder Singh Bittu


Present: Shri O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Pradeep Bhandari, Advocate for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

Civil Revision No.222 of 2002 filed by Jalandhar Improvement Trust was disposed of by this court on 25.2.2003 on the joint statement made on behalf of the parties that plot no.84, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar (later on changed to plot No.84, Master Tara Singh Nagar vide order dated 25.4.2003) shall be allotted to the respondent (in revision petition) on the condition that the possession thereof shall be taken by him at his own risk and responsibility.

Alleging that the above mentioned order was not complied with, the respondent in the revision petition has initiated these contempt proceedings.

In response to the show cause notice, Tejender Singh Bittu, Chairman, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar has filed an affidavit dated 9.7.2006 which has been taken on record. Along with the affidavit, copy of COCP No.444 of 2005 -: 2 :-

the letter dated 20.6.2003 has been appended as Annexure R-1 vide which the plot No.84, Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar (Vikash Scheme 55.6 Acre) has been allotted to the petitioner herein.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that since no conveyance deed has been executed by the improvement Turst, he will not be able to take possession of the plot from the unauthorized occupants.

Shri Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions from Mukhtiar Singh, Court Clerk who has got further instructions from the Chairman of the Trust, however, states that if the petitioner deposits the entire price of the plot, the conveyance deed shall be executed in his favour within one month of such deposit with a clear stipulation that the responsibility to take physical possession of the plot shall be that of the petitioner only. He further states that in the conveyance deed it shall not be possible for the Improvement Trust to mention the exact demarcation (length and width of the plot) as the same can only be measured after taking over of the physical possession.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has no objection if such measurements are not mentioned in the conveyance deed at this stage.

With a direction to both the parties to adhere to their respective above noticed stand, this contempt petition is disposed of.

Rule discharged.

July 11, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.