Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS versus SMT. SHARDA DEVI

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of Haryana & Ors v. Smt. Sharda Devi - RSA-583-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 938 (17 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 583 of 2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 6, 2006

State of Haryana and others

.....Appellants

Vs.

Smt. Sharda Devi

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate

for the appellants.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The defendant- State of Haryana and others having concurrently lost before both the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

The plaintiff claimed that he was owner in possession and had raised construction in her own property. A notice was issued by the Sub Divisional Engineer- defendant No.3 that she had encroached upon the suit property. It was claimed that the notice was bad inasmuch as the demarcation report dated November 8, 1989 showed that there was no such encroachment. However, the R.S.A. No. 583 of 2006 (O&M) [2]

defendants were trying to dispossess the plaintiff and demolish the suit property, and therefore, the suit was filed.

Both the Courts below have upheld the claim of the plaintiff based on the demarcation report Ex.PW2/1 dated November 8, 1989 and the report of the Naib Tehsildar, who was appointed as Local Commissioner, Ex.P.4 dated February 28, 1999. On that basis, it was held that plaintiff had raised the construction in her own property. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the appeal of the defendants was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

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

Dismissed.

February 6, 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.