Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 108 results (0.026 seconds)

Dec 11 2002 (HC)

Jasbir Singh Vs. Inderjit Kaur

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-11-2002

Reported in : AIR2003P& H317; (2003)135PLR170

..... the gotra of respondent. he denied the suggestion that no customary divorce is prevalent in distt. sangrur. the respondent also examined kashmir singh as rw3. he deposed that he was mediator of this marriage between the parties. he deposed that prior to this marriage, respondent was married to lachhman singh of village median. distt. sangrur. he deposed that said marriage was ..... previous husband was by way of a writing and that she could produce that writing. rw-2. kashmir singh, brother-in-law of the respondent deposed that he was the mediator between the petitioner and respondent. he deposed that he had told the fact of the previous marriage and divorce of the respondent, to the petitioner before the marriage. during cross .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2002 (HC)

Hari Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-31-2002

Reported in : I(2003)DMC654

..... ,000/- and she had assured hari singh that she would pay the said amount. during cross-examination, she deposed that at the time when talks for marriage took place through mediator, there was no talk regarding dowry. she stated that when hari singh came to her house after marriage, she had not asked hari singh as to why he was asking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2002 (HC)

Ram Piari and ors. Vs. Bimla and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-05-2002

Reported in : AIR2002P& H323

m.l. singhal, j.1. land measuring 208 kanal 14 marla was owned by one ramji dass who died on 16-3-1960, ramji dass had two wives, smt. bimla is ramji dass's daughter from second wife sanya devi, ranjit singh, kashmir singh, malkiat singh and smt. kanta devi are the sons and daughter of ramji dass from his first wife, smt. bimla filed suit for joint possession against ranjit singh and others claiming 1/6 share in land measuring 208 kanal 14 marla belonging to ramji dass, after the death of ramji dass, the plaintiff and her mother sanya devi were turned out of the residential house of ramji dass, ranjit singh and other defendants took possession of the entire estate of ramji dass, smt. bimla was not aware of the mutation proceedings. she requested ranjit singh and others many a time to deliver her joint possession to the extent of 1/6 share in the suit land as she was also one of the co-owners with them. it was alleged in the plaint that they had been recognising her right by giving her share of the produce from time to time. in the month of august, 1987 she came to know about the sanctioning of mutation of the estate of ramji dass. thereafter, she got copy of jamabandi. finding that her name was not there in the revenue record and that she had been illegally ignored by the revenue officer so far as the inheritance of ramji dass was concerned, she filed this suit for joint possession.2. ranjit singh and other defendant nos. 1 to 4 contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 2002 (HC)

Gurmeet Singh and anr. Vs. Consolidation Officer and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-01-2002

Reported in : (2003)133PLR444

satish kumar mittal, j.1. petitioners, gurmeet singh and harbans singh, have filed the present petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india for issuance of a -writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the mutation nos. 1743 (annexure p-3) and 1744 (annexure p-4) vide which the land recorded in the ownership of shamlat patti rajputan hasab pamana hakiat and shamlat patti awana hasab pamana hakiat, were changed by the assistant consolidation officer on the asking of the deputy commissioner, and entered the same in the name of individual shareholders/proprietors .2. the brief facts of the case are that the consolidation proceedings in the village bhamian khurd took place about 20 years ago. in those proceedings, the land in question was recorded in the name of shamilat patti rajputan hasab pamana hakiat and shamlat patti awana hasab pamana hakiat. on 5.5.2000, an application was filed by respondents 2 to 9 before the deputy commissioner, ludhiana with a prayer to direct the assistant consolidation officer, ludhiana to mutate the land in question in the name of the applicants in accordance with the partitions effected by them between themselves. the said application was to the following effect:-'to the deputy commissioner, ludhiana. sub: regarding mutation. sir, it is requested that we, the residents of village bhamian khurd, tehsil and district ludhiana have partitioned our land recorded as mustarka malkans in accordance with judgment of punjab and haryana .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 2002 (HC)

Hardayal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-05-2002

Reported in : (2003)134PLR496

v.k. bali, j.1. a small area of land measuring 14 kanals was notified for acquisition on 4th february 1974 to ameliorate the sufferings of landless harijans for providing a small dwelling unit to them in a colony that was to be established by the government on this piece of land. a period of almost three decades has gone by and yet, the object for which land was acquired, has not been achieved, thus, rendering a section of the society unable to get over the problem of home stead, so essential for life. the present case provides classic example where a welfare scheme, envisaged by the government for providing a small dwelling unit to the most needed section of the society, has been thwarted by some influential persons, like petitioner, in connivance with the government officials. this injustice caused to the weaker section of the society, endeavored by the influential persons, like petitioner, is sought to be perpetuated by means of present writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india.2. hardayal singh, who appears to be fighting a proxy litigation, as would emanate from the facts to be given hereinafter, has filed this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, against the state of punjab, officers of the government and 64 others, to quash notification dated 4th february, 1974 (annexure p.7), issued under section 4 of the land acquisition act. 1894 (for short 'the act') as also notification under section 6, notice under section 9 and award .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 2002 (HC)

Satyawan and ors. Vs. Raghbir

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-20-2002

Reported in : AIR2002P& H290

m.l. singhal, j. 1. this regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.1999 of the additional district judge, panipat affirming that of the civil judge (junior division) panipat dated 17.9.1997, whereby the (civil judge, junior division) had dismissed the plaintiffs' (appellants' herein) suit for declaration.2. facts:-plaintiffs satawan, mohinder singh and ishwar singh sons of bir singh filed suit for declaration against raghbir singh son of desa son of chandu to the effect that they are owners of land measuring 44 kanals 11 marlas detailed in para a of the head-note of the plaint, situated in the area of village kurana, tehsil israna, district panipat, shown in the jamabandi for the year 1987-88 and mutation nos.5040, 5142 and defendant raghbir singh is the owner of land as detailed in para b of the head-note of the plaint, situated in the area of village kurana, district panipat shown in the jamabandi for the year 1987-88 and mutation no.5247 and the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1992 passed in civil suit no.959 of 1992 by shri s.s. lamba, senior sub judge, panipat is illegal, null and void and was not binding on the plaintiffs and the same was based on fraud and mis-representation and was liable to be set aside, with consequent relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land detailed in para b of the head-note of the plaint and from alienating the land in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2002 (HC)

Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-04-2002

Reported in : (2003)133PLR326

m.l. singhal, j.1. through criminal mis. petition no.25956-m of 2001 rajinder kumar-petitioner has prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to him and through criminal misc. petition no.23064-m of 2001, jaswinder singh petitioner has prayed for the grant of anticipatoiy bail to him in case fir no. 126 dated 21.5.2001 registered under sections 419/420/463/467/468/471/471a/120b of the indian penal code at ps division no. 4, jalandhar.2. by means of this order, both these criminal misc. petitions shall be disposed of. facts:-3. the prosecution case in brief is that jaswant singh is the only son of sardar ajit singh who was owner of land measuring 41 kanals 11 marlas and 78 sq. feet in the revenue estate of village kingra. he died on 4.2.1998 ajit singh was resident of village kingra. during his life time in the year, 1996, ajit singh had given two general power of attorney to s. atam parkash singh s/o aya singh resident of jalandhar authorising him to sell his land situated in village kingra. s. atam parkash singh did not sell that land during the life time of ajit singh. on 29.07.1995 ajit singh had executed a registered will in favour of his son jaswant singh regarding his whole movable and immovable property. on 18.03.1998, i.e., after the death of ajit singh, jaswant singh got mutation entered on the basis of said will at no.11016 with rajinder kumar halwa patwari. he (jaswant singh) became absolute heir of the whole of the property of his father. rajinder kumar patwari, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 2002 (HC)

Ramesh and ors. Vs. Nathi

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-16-2002

Reported in : (2003)133PLR522

m.m. kumar, j.1. the defendant-petitioners invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the code) have challenged the order dated 20.4.2002 passed by the additional district judge, karnal dismissing their appeal against the order dated 8.10.20.01. the civil judge (jr. divn.) karnal vide his order dated 8.10.2001 has allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondent filed under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 of the code granting ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 2. for the effective adjudication of the controversy raised in the present revision petition, it is necessary to notice the facts in brief. the plaintiff-respondent nathi son of tej ram filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioners with a prayer that the plaintiff-respondent is owner in possession of agricultural land fully described in the plaint alleging that he purchased the land from darshan lal and jai pal sons of nano devi and also bimla, parmeshwari daughters of smt. santo daughter of sada rant. it was further alleged that the land has also been purchased from attar singh son of ratti ram, ishwar devi daughter of ratti ram etc, etc, vide registered sale deed no. 8818/1 dated 15.3.2001. it was further claimed that the sale deed was executed by raj kumar son of parmeshwari daughter of santo being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2002 (HC)

Gurmail Singh and Gurmej Singh Vs. Hardyal Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-26-2002

Reported in : AIR2002P& H327

m.m. kumar, j.1. this revision petition filed under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the code') is directed against the order dated 12.2.2002 passed by the additional district judge, sirsa allowing the appeal filed against the order dated 16.8.2001 passed by the civil judge (junior division) sirsa. the civil judge in its order has dismissed the application of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 for restarting the defendant-petitioner from alienating the suit land and also from interfering into the cultivating possession of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 over the suit land. thereafter, the additional district judge has allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering into possession of the plaintiff-respondent no. l over the suit land.2. brief facts of the case as unfolded in this case are that the plaintiff-respondent no. l has filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner seeking declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 29 kanals 12 marlas comprised in sq. no. 73 killa no. 9(8-0), 10/1 (5-10), 10/2 (2-10) 11(8-0) 12/1 (3-6) 19/1/2 (0-13) 20/1 (1-13) as shown and denoted with green colour in the rough site plan annexure a attached with the plaint situated in village ellenabad tehsil ellenabad district sirsa; and plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is also owner in possession of 282/702 share of land measuring 23 kanals 6 marlas comprised in sq. no. 73 killa no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2002 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-13-2002

Reported in : (2003)133PLR537

n.k. sodhi, j. 1. a divsion bench of this court in gram panchayat, daha v. chief settlement commissioner and ors. 1973 p.l.j. 389 held that share of the evacuee in the shamilat land of the village from which muslim evacuees had migrated vested in the custodian by virtue of sections 7 and 8 of the administration of evacuee property act, 1950 and that the punjab village common lands (regulation) act no. 1 of 1954 did not divest such share of the evacuees and such share which had vested in the custodian did not get vested in the panchayats. 2. the judgment of this court was reversed by the supreme court in gram panchayat of village jamalpur v. malwinder singh and ors., a.i.r. 1985 s.c. 1394 in which the learned judges of the apex court held that evacuee interest in the shamilat deh land came to be reverted in the panchayat of the village along with rights and interest of all others under section 3 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act no. 1 of 1954. we are concerned with the evacuee interest in the shamilat land of village dhani silanwali. on the pronouncement of the judgment by the supreme court in the aforesaid case evacuee interest came to vest in the gram panchayat but nevertheless it was mutated in favour of the custodian and mutation no. 389 was sanctioned in favour of the government of india. that mutation was challenged before the collector who dismissed the appeal. feeling aggrieved by the said order, gram panchayat of thevillage filed a revision petition .....

Tag this Judgment!


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