Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 176 results (0.073 seconds)

Feb 16 2003 (HC)

Cyril Archibong Vs. State of Union Territory

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-16-2003

Reported in : 2003(88)ECC133

..... ; om parkash had given the house to dr. obisisqsang ojo, amadhi and david through the appellant and since they could not pay the rent and as the appellant was a mediator, the inspector compelled him to pay the rent which he denied; the inspector misappropriated rs. 20,000 out of rs. 80,000 recovered from the house of the appellant as ..... sho, the latter had confiscated their articles and told that the articles would be returned only if rs. 25,000 is paid to him; that since the appellant was a mediator, he was falsely implicated in this case by the sho.20. jassica (dw-3) is the wife of the appellant, who has stated that on 19.11.1998 in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2003 (HC)

Smt. Parkash Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Dass

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-28-2003

Reported in : AIR2003P& H191; II(2004)DMC410; (2003)134PLR500

..... the matrimonial home. this was about 5/6 months after she had been turned out. in response to this letter, the uncle of the respondent namely shanker and surjan the mediator to the marriage between the parties accompanied by other persons came to see ram kishan, sarpanch of village kotla. thereafter all of them went to the house of the appellant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2003 (HC)

Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and or ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-05-2003

Reported in : (2003)133PLR734

satish kumar mittal, j. 1. this judgment shall dispose of civil writ petition no. 351 of 1986 and the regular second appeals no. 2385, 2395, 2396, 2401 and 2450 of 1993, which have been ordered to be heard along with aforesaid writ petition.2. the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are beneficiaries of the will dated 5.9.1962, alleged to have been executed by smt. chanan kaur, under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india, for quashing of the order dated 25.11.1985 (annexure p-6), passed by the financial commissioner, revenue, punjab, chandigarh, vide which the orders dated 18.10.1982 and 19.12.1983, passed by the collector as well as the commissioner, respectively, were set aside. 3. the brief facts of the case are that one smt. chanan kaur, widow of sardar triloki nath, was owner of the agricultural land, situated in two villages, namely mand miani jhanduwala and mand sardar sahib wala, both in tehsil and district kapurthala, which is subject matter of the present controversy. she died issueless on 23.11.1962. consequent upon her death, the question regarding inheritance of her aforesaid land arose, for which two claims were made. one claim was made by the petitioners on the basis of an unregistered will dated 5.9.1962, alleged to had been executed by smt. chanan kaur and the second claim was made by the punjab bhudan board on the basis of a gift deed dated 26.3.1959, executed by smt. chanan kaur in its favour. respondents no. 3 to 5, who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2003 (HC)

Balwant Singh Vs. Khushal Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-11-2003

Reported in : AIR2004P& H63; (2003)135PLR439

adarsh kumar goel, j. 1. the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share and mutation in the jamabandi for the year 1978-79 as well as entries in column no. 4 of subsequent jamabandis in favour of defendants were void. 2. defendants are sons of the plaintiff. it was stated that plaintiff and defendants were owners in joint possession to the extent of 1/3rd share each pursuant to sale deed dated 19.11.1980 whereby plaintiff and defendants jointly purchased the suit property. case of the plaintiff, further was that the defendants got mutation entered in record showing themselves to be owners in equal shares which mutation was erroneous and did not bind the plaintiff who continued to be owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share. 3. the suit was contested by defendant no. 2 only while defendant no. 1 filed written statement supporting the plaintiff. defendant no. 2 claimed that suit property was purchased by him exclusively and not jointly as claimed by the plaintiff and, therefore, mutation excluding the name of the plaintiff was valid. 4. the trial court decreed the suit in view of sale deed dated 19.11.1980, ex.p.2, evidence of pw1 plaintiff, khushal singh, pw2 bagga singh, sarpanch and also admission of dw1 mahanta singh, defendant no. 1. it was also held that entries excluding plaintiff were without any basis. 5. on appeal, the findings of the trial court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2003 (HC)

Mangat Ram @ Mangat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-05-2003

Reported in : (2004)138PLR189

m.m. kumar, j.1. this order shall dispose of r.f.a. no. 1224 of 1986 titled ram saran and .others v. state of haryana, rfa no. 1649 titled mangat ram and anr. v. state of haryand, r.f.a. no. 1654 of 1986 titled rama rani v. state of haryana and r.f.a. no. 1777 of 1986 titled, dropti devi widow of jati ram and ors. v. state of haryana. in all these cases, the notification acquiring the land is one and the same. the award as well as the judgment of the reference court are also common. the claimant-appellants have filed the instant appeals under section 54 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the act') challenging the order dated 29.11.1985 passed by the additional district judge, kurukshetra and seeking further enhancement in respect of the acquired land, the structures and other items. 2. brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant appeals are that notification under section 4 of the act was issued expressing the intention of the respondent-state to acquire land measuring 69 kanals situated at village ratgal for the construction of a bus stand at kurukshetra. on 20.12.1980, the possession of the land was taken. the land acquisition collection, thanesar announced the award on 2.9.1981 and awarded compensation for the acquired land which ranged between rs. 15,000/- per acre to rs. 40,000/- per acre depending upon the quality of the land. for the chahi land, the compensation awarded was rs. 30,000/- and for gair mumkin abadi land, rs. 40,000/-per .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2003 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Balad Kalan Vs. the Joint Development Commissioner and ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-14-2003

Reported in : (2003)134PLR747

satish kumar mittal, j.1. gram panchayat balad kalan, tehsil and district sangrur, has filed the instant writ petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.05.1986 (annexure p-7) passed by the district development and panchayat officer (exercising the powers of collector), sangrur (respondent no. 2 herein) vide which the suit filed by the contesting respondents under section 11 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (hereinafter referred, to as 'the act') was decreed and it was declared that the land in question does not fall under the definition of 'shamlat deh' and does not vest in the gram panchayat and that the contesting respondents are owners of the same. the petitioner has also impugned the order dated 10.5.1995 (annexure p-10),passed by the joint development commissioner (iro), punjab (exercising the powers of commissioner) (respondent no. 1 herein), vide which the appeal filed by the gram panchayat was dismissed and the aforesaid order dated 5.5.1986 was confirmed.2. the brief facts of the case are that in the revenue record, the land in question measuring 68 bighas 17 biswas was recorded as 'shamtat deh hasab rasad jare khewat' in possession of 'maqbuja malkann'. the aforesaid land was mutated in the name of gram panchayat some where in the year 1954-55 in view of the provisions of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1953 (hereinafter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2003 (HC)

Mehnga Singh and ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-13-2003

Reported in : AIR2004P& H93

m.m. kumar, j.1. this is defendants appeal filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity the code) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondents being mortgagor of the suit land were entitled to possession of the same by redeeming it from the defendant-appellants, who were the mortgagees. the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents has been held to be within the period of limitation because the same was filed within a period of seven years next after the commencement of the limitation act, 1963 (for brevity the 1963 act). the suit could have been filed under section 30 of the act before 5-10-1970 because the act has come into force on 5-10-1963 whereas the suit in fact was filed on 12-1-1967.2. the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession by way of redemption on payment of rs. 7000/- in respect of the suit land. they alleged that one jalmal singh s/o chhatar singh, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff-respondents had mortgaged his land measuring 159 kanals 5 marias being 5/12 share of the land out of the land measuring 382 kanals 5 marias situated in village dhulchur, tehsil depalpur, distt, montgomery (pakistan) in favour of uttam singh, harcharan singh, bahadur singh sons of jawala singh to the extent of 1/3rd share. the rest 2/3rd share was mortgaged to lachman singh and sher singh sons of sada singh vide registered sale deed dated 6-7-1928. the fact of mortgage .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2003 (HC)

Ajay Chaudhary Vs. Santosh Kumar and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-14-2003

Reported in : (2003)135PLR3

m.l. singhal, j.1. plaintiff smt. santosh kumari is the wife of sh. ch. dube singh of village kurar. defendant no. 1 is ch. sube singh himself while defendant no. 2 ajay chaudhary and defendant no. 3 sanjay chaudhary are the sons of ch. sube singh. on 8.4.1991, smt. santosh kumari filed suit for declaration against ch. sube singh and his two sons ajay chaudhary and sanjay chaudhary whereby she prayed that decree dated 12.3.1991 vide which 67 kanal 5 marlas of land detailed in para no. 1 of the plaint situated in village nangal khurd, tehsil and district sonepat was transferred in the name of the defendants in almost equal shares, be annulled. it is alleged in the plaint that she was the owner of land measuring 67 kanal 5 niarla situated in village nangal khurd, tehsil and district sonepat. since sometime past, ch. sube singh became more favourably disposed towards his elder son ajay chaudhary. he wanted larger share of ips research and breeding farm to his elder son ajay chaudhary. she was insisting upon both ajay chaudhary and sanjay chaudhary being given equal share so that there was no jerk to the peace and harmony in the family in future. defendant ch. sube singh began nursing ill-will towards her as he was not approving that both the sons be given equal share in tps research and breeding farm. he started beating her, torturing her in different ways and imputing unchastity to her. she and ch. sube. singh were away to putaparti. there arose great upror between them. after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2003 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Narender Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-28-2003

Reported in : (2004)136PLR469

v.m. jain, j. 1. this regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant-gram panchayat against the judgments and decrees of the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by the defendant-gram panchayat, was dismissed by the learned additional district judge.2. the facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession, in respect of the agricultural land measuring 110 kanals, 8 marlas, described in the heading of the plaint. it was alleged that satnam singh, plaintiff and the predecessors-in-interest of the other plaintiffs, were co-sharers in the shamlat deh, darbi. it was alleged that in the year 1946, shamlat deh land was partitioned between co-sharers and that the partition proceedings were pending before the revenue officer and before the instrument of partition could be drawn, the muslim co-sharers left for pakistan (during partition) and as such the mutation, after partition could not be sanctioned. it was alleged that the share belonging to the muslim co-sharers was declared evacuee property and was allotted to various displaced persons. it was alleged that plaintiff, satnam singh and the predecessors-in-interest of the other plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners in possession of 21 bighas and 1 biswa of land. it was alleged that the said suit was decreed by the trial court on 15.3.1961. it was alleged that the mutation in respect of the said civil court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2003 (HC)

Manti and ors. Vs. Sarwati Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-18-2003

Reported in : (2004)136PLR397

adarsh kumar goel, j.1. the respondents filed a suit claiming title in the suit property on the basis of inheritance to the estate of dalip chand and mokhi who died issue-less. pedigree table showing the relationship between the parties as mentioned in the judgment of the trial court is extracted below:[email protected] = 1. matachand : ml manohari (widow) m2 manti m3 biro m4 shanti =ranim5 prithi =ramkumar's widow died issue-less.m6 kamlesh =k1 (pavan) k2 (sat parkash) k3 (tara devi) k4 (darshana devi)(defendants)deyot 2. fateh1. chamelir1 (girdhar)ram chand2. lador2 (mahavir)3. ramchanderr3 (kam la-widow) r4 (krishna)4. ishwar11. sarbati5. desh raj12. niranjan6. dev raj13. kusum(plaintiffs)3. dalip (died issue-less) 4. mokhi (died issue-less) case of the plaintiffs (heirs of fateh chand) is that they were owners in possession of 1/3rd share of land measuring 212 kanals 8 marlas and land measuring 88 kanals 8 marlas and mutation pertaining to succession to the estate of deceased dalip dated 20.1.1996 and mutation dated 29.6.1967 regarding succession to the estate of deceased mokhi and gift deeds dated 3.7.1968 were erroneous and did not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. case of the plaintiffs, further, was that common ancestor was deyot ram, who was owner of half share of total land and he had three sons namely mata chand (predecessor of the defendants who died on 25.3.1959), fateh chand and dalip chand (predecessor of plaintiffs who died issue-less on 9.6.1959). mokhi, daughter of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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