Skip to content


Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar Vs. Sham Dass - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 2378 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1984P& H174
ActsPunjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 - Sections 59 and 65(3); Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Sections 25; Provincial Small Cause Courts (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1975 - Sections 2
AppellantAmritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar
RespondentSham Dass
Excerpt:
.....a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. .....(hereinafter called the act), made the award on november 30, 1975. on april 1, 1977, the decree-holder filed the execution application for realisation of the said amount with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the dispossession till the date of the actual payment. the said application was filed under section. 65(3) of the act in the court of the small causes as provided thereunder. the application was contested as it was pleaded that the decree-holder was not entitled to claim any interest. ultimately, the small cause court found that the decree-holder was entitled to recover rs. 10,160.00 as the balance amount of compensation and interest. dissatisfied with the same the improvement trust has filed this revision petition in this court.2. at the time of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The facts are not disputed. The Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 59, Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, (hereinafter called the Act), made the award on November 30, 1975. On April 1, 1977, the decree-holder filed the execution application for realisation of the said amount with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the dispossession till the date of the actual payment. The said application was filed under Section. 65(3) of the Act in the Court of the Small Causes as provided thereunder. The application was contested as it was pleaded that the decree-holder was not entitled to claim any interest. Ultimately, the Small Cause Court found that the decree-holder was entitled to recover Rs. 10,160.00 as the balance amount of compensation and interest. Dissatisfied with the same the Improvement Trust has filed this revision petition in this Court.

2. At the time of the hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that no such petition was competent in this Court. The order having been passed by the Small Cause Court, revision was competent in the Court of the District Judge in view of the provisions of Section 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1975, by virtue of which Section 25 of the principle Act has been substituted. Section 2 of the said Act reads,--

Substitution of Section 25 of Central Act 9 of 1887--For Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, in its application to the State of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), the following section shall be substituted, namely-- '25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes.--The District Judge for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of an aggrieved party made within thirty days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case arid pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit.'

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent. In view of the substituted Section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 the present revision petition filed in this Court is not maintainable.

4. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. However, the petitioner may seek its remedy in accordance with law if so advised.

5. Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //