Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANSHI RAM & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kanshi Ram & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - RSA-775-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 811 (15 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

R.S.A. No.775 of 2006

Date of Decision:21.2.2006

Kanshi Ram and others

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present:- Shri Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

****

Appellants- plaintiffs filed a suit for possession to claim ownership of the property in dispute. In their suit, they also laid challenge to the entries, made by the consolidation authority, in the revenue record.

Further challenge was made to the allotment made by the competent authority in favour of the respondents under the provisions of The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The Courts below came to the conclusion that so far as the challenge to the entries made by the consolidation authority is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere was barred, in view of provisions of Section 44 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,

1948. It has further been held that so far as allotment, is concerned, it was made by the competent authority, in favour of the respondents. The same was challenged by the appellants and they failed. In view of the provisions of Section 26(1)(b) of The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, it R.S.A. No.775 of 2006 [2]

was held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred, to entertain that dispute. Before the Courts below, appellants have also failed to prove that any mistake in law, was committed by the authorities when land was allotted to the respondents.

In view of findings given by the appellate Court below in para Nos.10 to 15, no case is made for interference in pure findings of fact as no substantial question of law has been raised at the time of arguments.

Dismissed.

February 21, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH )

renu 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.