Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS versus JEET SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of Haryana & Ors v. Jeet Singh - RSA-3503-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 881 (17 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 3503 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 9, 2006

State of Haryana and others

.....Appellants

Vs.

Jeet Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, DAG, Haryana,

for the appellants.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in re-filing and filing the appeal is condoned.

The defendants- State of Haryana and others having concurrently lost before both the Courts below have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

A suit for declaration and for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he had been allowed land as a Harijan in the year 1963 and had been in possession thereof for the last 30 years as owner of the said property.

He was also claimed that defendants wanted to auction the land again which was illegal, bad and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.

R.S.A. No. 3503 of 2005 (O&M) [2]

The defendants claimed that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. It was also claimed that suit land had been earlier auctioned on December 30, 1994, in favour of one Gaurav, and Smt. Santosh. It was also clamed by the defendants that as owners, the defendants are within their rights to seek the possession of the suit land.

The learned trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff qua ownership and as such dismissed the suit for declaration. However, it was found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, and therefore, it was directed that he be not dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court were affirmed in appeal by the learned first Appellate Court and appeal of the defendants failed.

In view of the liberty granted to the defendants that they can dispossess the plaintiff in due course of law, there is no justification to interfere in the present appeal.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 9, 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.