Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2004 Page 10 of about 165 results (0.029 seconds)

Jan 07 2004 (HC)

Atma Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-07-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR428

h.s. bedi, j. 1. land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas, situated in village bhagta bhai ka, district bhatinda; was notified for acquisition under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'land act') on 7.5.1982. on the completion of the acquisition proceedings, the compensation of the land was deposited by the collector in the government treasury and the possession was taken from the land owners. it appears that the petitioner subsequently entered into possession of the land and cultivated the rabi 1983 crop. respondent no. 2, the extra assistant colonization officer, punjab (exercising the powers of collector under the colonization of government lands (punjab) act, 1912 (hereinafter called the 'act') thereupon issued a notice, annexure p1, dated 12.10.1983 to the petitioners to show cause as to why the value of the crop be not fixed at rs. 1,500/- per acre and recovery be made from them. the petitioners did not appear before the collector in response to the notice, on which the collector after examining the site in question and determining that the crop had, in the meanwhile, been cut by the petitioners, assessed the value thereof at rs. 506.25 vide his order dated 27.2.1984 (annexure p2). it is against the aforesaid order that the present writ petition has been filed.2. on notice of motion, a reply has been filed by the respondents and the plea that the collector was not authorised to levy a charge on the petitioner has been denied. reliance for this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2004 (HC)

Bachana Ram and ors. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holding ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-02-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR755

surya kant, j.1. bachana ram and 44 other petitioners have approached this court under article 226 of the constitution of india for quashing orders dated 28.10.1982 (annexure p-i), dated 10.8.1983 (annexure p-2) and dated 10.5.1984 (annexure p-4) passed by additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab in exercise of his power under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation & prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short 'the act').2. the consolidation of holdings in village mangwal took place somewhere in the year 1956-57, deva singh (respondent no. 2) was the owner in possession of killa no. 57/13/2/2 measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas and 14 biswansis in the revenue estate of village mangwal; this land was of 'a' grade. during the consolidation proceedings, deva singh (respondent no. 2) was given an alternative land in lieu of the afore-mentioned land but the land thus allotted was less by 6 biswansis, it seems that deva singh (respondent no. 2) sold his share in the land to sanjiv kumar and sangit kumar, respondent no. 3 and 4, deva singh (respondent no. 2) also moved a petition under section 42 of the act for making good the deficiency to the extent of 6 biswansis of land, the petitioners are owners and land holders of village mangwal, the learned additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab vide his order dated 28.10.1985 (annexure p-1) after having obtained a report dated 22.2.1982 from the field kanungo, concluded that there was deficiency of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2004 (HC)

Jugal Kishore Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-18-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR116

s.s. nijjar, j.1. with the consent of counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage as the pleadings are complete. written statement on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 filed in court today is taken on record. respondent no. l has filed the written statement earlier.2. in this petition under article 226/227 of the constitution of india, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the period of service of the petitioner from 2.7.11971 to 31.8.1975 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.3. the municipal corporation, aroritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the corporation') was earlier a municipal committee and had been constituted as a municipal corporation in the year 1997 under the punjab municipal corporation act; 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the municipal committee, amritsar vide resolution no. 2589 decided to fill up the existing as well as future anticipated vacancies of bill distributors, library care-takers and tax collectors. names of eligible candidates were called from the employment exchange as well as directly. on 2.7.1969, a selection committee consisting of president and executive officer, interviewed all the candidates. two separate select lists were prepared i.e. for general category and for reserved categories, respectively. 20 candidates were selected in the general category. whereas 24 candidates were selected in the reserved .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2004 (HC)

Mohinder Singh and anr. Vs. Gurbax Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-01-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR154

satish kumar mittal, j.1. this judgment shall dispose of regular second appeals no. 1919 and 2384 of 1985, filed by defendant mohinder singh and plaintiff gurbax singh, respectively. both these appeals have arisen from the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff regarding the properties of one dasbndha singh claiming himself as his adopted son.2. the said dasondha singh was owner of the land measuring 40 bighas 15 biswas, a house and an electric motor, as mentioned in the plaint, which are the properties in dispute in the instant case. he died on 4.8.1980. on 6.9.1980, the plaintiff gurbax singh, who is sister's son of dasondha singh, instituted the present suit for possession of the aforesaid properties in dispute alleging therein that he was adopted by dasondha singh vide a registered adoption deed dated 3.2.1946 (ex.p3) as his son. after the adoption, dasondha singh treated him as his son and he also treated him as his lather. he continuously served him during his life time. it was further pleaded that after the death of dasondha singh, when the plaintiff approached to the patwari for entering the mutation of inheritance of the property of dasondha singh in his name, he came to know that the same was already got mutated by defendant mohinder singh in his name on the basis of two civil court decrees dated 15,3.1973 and 1.5.1974, which were suffered by dasondha singh in his favour collusively on the basis of an alleged family settlement. the plaintiff gurbax singh also .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 2004 (HC)

Smt. Rajni Widow of Hardutt Vs. Smt. Roshni and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-27-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR207

m.m. kumar, j.1. this order shall dispose of two cross appeals namely, r.s.a. no. 1633 of 1982 (for brevity, '1st case') and r.s.a. no. 759 of 1982 (for brevity, 'iind case'). both the appeals are the result of cross suits filed by the parties against one and another. the trial court has dismissed both the suits with costs vide its judgment dated 3.10.1980 and the learned additional district judge, kurukshetra has further dismissed the appeals vide his judgment and decree dated 6.2.1982. feling aggrieved, the parlies have approached this court by filing the appeals under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 ( for brevity, 'the code').appeal filed by rajni bala; [ist case]2. the appeal filed by smt. rajni i.e. r.s.a. no. 1633 of 1982 has arisen from civil suit no. 101 of 1977. smt. rajni is widow of one hardutt. she filed civil suit no. 101 of 1977 on 4.4.1977 against smt. roshni widow of mohinder singh son of mann singh and smt. kanti wife of man singh son of datta ram seeking a declaration to the effect that she was exclusive owner of land measuring 255 kanals 13 marlas, situated at village chandana. she claimed that smt, roshni and smt. kanti have no concern with the land which is fully described in para 1 of the plaint. she has also asserted that her husband hardutt died in 1952 and being widow and the sole legal heir, she succeeded to his estate which included the suit land. by operation of section 14(1) of the hindu succession act, 1956, she became its .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2004 (HC)

Gulzara Singh and ors. Vs. Devinder Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-03-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR330

hemant gupta, j.1. the plaintiff-respondents have moved the present application under sections 152 and 153 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for correcting typographical error or accidental slip in the decree passed by the trial court on 18.9.1990 affirmed by the learned district judge on 5.2.1993 and by this court in second appeal on 7.10.1993.2. it has been alleged that the applicant-plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12.9.1987 and the sale deed dated 22.9.1987 executed by defendant surinder singh. the suit was filed with regard to the land measuring 18 kanals 18 marlas being 488/128th share of defendant no. 1 in the total land measuring 51 kanals 8 marlas. the disputed khasra number was described in the suit as 21/1 (9-9) as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85. in agreement to sell dated 12.9.1987 the details of khasra number was not mentioned though khata no. 183/288 was mentioned with the total area of the land measuring 51 kanals 8 marlas.3. it has further been pointed out that as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85 produced before the trial court there is no khasra no. 21/1 (9-9) or khata no. 182/261. however, the correct khasra no. is 22/1 (9-9). while executing sale deed on 22.9.1987, the petitioner has given the details of khasra no. 21/1 (9-9) was mentioned instead of correct khasra no. 22/1 (9-9) but in the last para of sale deed dated 22.9.1987 ex.p2 the correct khasra number have been mentioned i. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2004 (HC)

Gulwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Ajit Singh (Deceased) Throug ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-26-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR106

hemant gupta, j.1. the plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court whereby the suit for possession of land in respect of 3 kanals out of total land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas was dismissed while granting decree for possession in respect of 4 kanals 2 marlas.2. the plaintiff alleged that he is owner of land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas of land and the defendants have forcibly occupied the land of the plaintiff about four months back and thus sought decree of possession. the defendants controverted the allegations and pleaded that one charan singh has been in possession of the suit property for a period of more than 12 years who has acquired title by adverse possession being in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years. it was alleged that the defendants are in possession of the suit land under charan singh.3. on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-1. whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute? opp2. whether charan singh is a necessary party? if so, what effect? opd.3. whether charan singh has acquired title over the suit property by adverse possession? opd.4. relief.4. in evidence, the plaintiff/appellants have produced jamabandi exhibit p-2 wherein one gehna singh was owner of the land comprising in khasra no. 39/4 min (3 kanals), 39/5 min, 39/4 (2k-2m), 39/min (2k). charan singh was in possession as superior tenant and ajit singh and piara singh as inferior .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2004 (HC)

State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Lt. Gen. K.L.K. Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-31-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H76; (2005)139PLR45

v.m. jain, j.1. this regular. second appeal has been filed by the defendants state of haryana and others, against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2001 passed by the additional district judge, panchkula, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 3.11.1999 passed by the trial court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.2. lt. gen. k.l.k.singh (retired) (plaintiff) had filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant appellants, alleging therein that he and his wife had owned 2 bigha 15 biswa of land in village naggal mogi nand and that after retirement from army, he wanted to construct a residential house and therein in order to look after the farm effectively. it was alleged that in this regard, the plaintiff moved an application of the deputy commissioner, ambala on 26.4.1990 for grant of permission to construct the said residential house, as required under the provisions of the punjab new capital (periphery) control act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the act). it was alleged that thereafter, another application in this regard was also submitted by the plaintiff and his wife jointly to defendant no. l i.e. director, town and country planning, haryana, under certificate of posting on 18.5.1990 alongwith relevant documents. it was alleged that neither the plaintiff nor his wife received any communication either from the deputy commissioner, ambala or defendant no. l i.e. director town and country .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2004 (HC)

Ravinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Jagmohan Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-04-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H56; (2005)139PLR122

ajay kumar mittal, j.1. the dispute involved in this regular second appeal is between the offsprings of two real brothers, namely, piara singh and kaur singh pertaining to their properties situated in two villages, ghudani kalan and ghudani khurd, tehsil payal, district ludhiana. in order to appreciate the controversy raised herein, it is deemed appropriate to notice as to who are the legal representatives left behind by piara singh and kaur singh. the two brothers are said to have expired, long ago even prior to the filing of the suit. savinder singh, jasbir singh, jaswinder singh and sukhbir singh are the sons of piara singh. savinder singh has also died, leaving behind his widow ravinder kaur and two sons-harjinder singh and sukhjiwan singh. on the other side, jagmohan singh, manmohan singh and harmohan singh are the sons of kaur singh whereas avtar singh is the son of aforesaid jagmohan singh.2. a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by savinder singh through his legal representatives i.e. widow ravinder kaur and two sons harjinder singh and sukhjiwan singh (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff-appellants') and the remaining three sons of piara singh, namely, jaswinder singh, jasbir singh and sukhbir singh against three sons of kaur singh, namely, jagmohan singh, manmohan singh, harmohan singh and avtar singh son of jagmohan singh (hereinafter referred as 'defendant-respondents).3. the plaintiff-appellants sought a decree for declaration to the effect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2004 (HC)

Smt. Gayatri Jain, P.C.S. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-20-2004

Reported in : (2005)140PLR225

satish kumar mittal, j.1. petitioner, who has retired as additional secretary to government of punjab on september 30, 2001, has filed this petition under section 482 cr.p.c. for quashing of f.i.r. no. 43 dated 30.5.2002 under sections 408, 420, 487, 468, 471 and 120b i.p.c. and sections 13(1)(a)(d), 13(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988, registered with vigilance bureau, patiala.2. in the year 1997, the petitioner was posted as additional director consolidation, punjab, empowered with powers of the state government under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the consolidation act). on 24.6.1977, when she was so posted, the proprietors of village sekhon majra filed a petition under section 42 of the consolidation act against the gram panchayat for re-distribution of the bachat land. their claim was that during the consolidation, the department of consolidation imposed pro rate cut on the proprietors under rule 16(ii) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949. after utilising part of the land for the common purpose, some land remained unutilised, which was not to be transferred and could not have been vested in the gram panchayat and the same was liable to be re-distributed among the proprietors. the said petition was allowed by the petitioner vide her quasi judicial order dated 24.6.1997 while holding that the aforesaid bachat land does .....

Tag this Judgment!

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