Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2004 Page 11 of about 165 results (0.027 seconds)

Dec 15 2004 (HC)

Amar Singh and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Hissar Division and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-15-2004

Reported in : (2005)140PLR269

m.m. aggarwal, j.1. this petition had been filed by amar singh son of ram lal, resident of village khatiwas, district bhiwani now represented by his legal representatives, for quashing orders dated 25.5.1988 (annexure p-2) of assistant collector first grade, 16.8.1988 (annexure p-3) of collector and 14.3.1989 (annexure p-4) of commissioner, hissar division and for declaring that land in dispute is under the ownership and possession of the petitioner and mutation no. 373 in favour of the gram panchayat respondent no. 4 is illegal.2. this petition had been filed by amar singh in a representative capacity on behalf of other share holders of pana kapooran village khatiwas. according to the petitioner, the land had been 40 kanals 8 marlas bearing khewat no. 77/78 as per jamabandi for the year 1980-81. the mutation of this land bearing no. 373 dated 12.7.1980 had been entered in favour of the gram panchayat which was against law and it had no effect on the rights and title of the petitioner and other shareholders of the village. one jage ram had earlier filed a suit which was dismissed on 3.3.1983. appeal filed by jage ram had been dismissed by the collector. that the land in dispute was owned by shareholders of village panna kapooran. this fact was duly recorded in jamabandi for the years 1946-47, 1970-71, 1975-76 and 1980-81. it was never utilised for the benefit of the village community. it did not vest in the gram panchayat. it is a averred that mere sanction of mutation did .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2004 (HC)

Bachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs Vs. Labh Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-29-2004

Reported in : (2005)141PLR39

hemant gupta, j.1. the plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court whereby his suit for pre-emption was dismissed in appeal.2. the plaintiff filed a suit for possession alleging therein that the vendor singh ram is jointly recorded as owner of half share of land measuring 24 kanals situated in village fatehgarh tehsil naraingarh. it is also alleged that the plaintiff and the vendor singh ram are related to each other as the plaintiff is fourth decree collateral of the vendor. it is further pleaded that singh ram has sold half of 24 kanals of land by way of registered sale deed dated 2.6.1979 registered on 29.6.1979 for an ostensible consideration of rs. 30,000/-. the plaintiff inter alia claimed superior right for pre-emption as a co-sharer with the vendor in the land in dispute under section 15(1) of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the act).3. if was the case of the defendant that singh ram was owner of only 3/4th share and his sister was owner of 1/4th share and both of them were jointly owners of half of the land. it was denied that singh ram alone has half share of land measuring 24 kanals but it was asserted that the sale was by singh ram and angrejo who are owners of the land. in the replication, it was pointed out that the sale is by singh ram for himself and as mukhtiar of smt. angrejo. therefore, tire sale is pre-emptible.4. the learned trial court decreed the suit on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2004 (HC)

Dalbara Singh and anr. Vs. the Additional Director, Consolidation of H ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-23-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR603a

ajay kumar mittal, j.(23rd february, 2004) - this is a petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india for quashing the order dated 24.5.1984, annexure p1 passed by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab in petition no. 109 of 1983 filed by respondent no. 2-raunqi ram under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short, 'the act').2. brief facts are that consolidation proceedings in village rampur, tehsil phillaur, district jullundur took place in the year 1952-53. scheme under' section 20 of the act was formulated and in accordance therewith, repartition was finalised in the year 1954. the scheme stipulated that paths should be provided to every right-holder to whom the paths were duly aligned. there was no challenge to the alignment of path made in favour of the petitioners during partition.3. after a lapse of 30 years, respondent no. 2 filed a petition under section 42 of the act before the additional director, consolidation of holdings for an access path to 'jathere' measuring 11 marlas in killa no. 411, even though he (respondent no. 2) was not the right-holder of the village as he did not own any land and was resident of village mayia khurd, tehsil phillaur, district jullundur. the additional director, consolidation of holdings, by order dated 24.5.1984 accepted the said petition and created a path. it is this order which has been impugned in the present writ petition.4. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2004 (HC)

Gram Panchayat of Village Issi Vs. Director, Consolidation of Holdings ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-28-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR753

g.s. singhvi, j.1. this petition is directed against orders dated 1.10.1982 (annexure p4) passed by additional director, consolidation of holdings punjab and 23.11.1984 (annexure p12) passed by director, consolidation of holdings, punjab (respondent no.l).2. the facts:-the consolidation scheme of village issi, tehsil dhuri, district sangrur was pre- pared, published and finalised in 1956. respondent nos.2 and 3, who had participated in the consolidated proceedings, did not raise any objection or questioned the scheme till they filed a petition in 1982 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short, 'the act') for making good the alleged deficiency to the extent of one rupee and eight annas by making the follow- ing averments:-'5. that after it at the time of allotment (taqseem mukarar) came. according to these resolutions, the land shown as under was given to the applicant.'a' grade 'b' grade totalrs. annas paisa rs. annas paisa rs. annas paisa17.7.2 5.15.1 23.6.3here note deficiency of re. 1 annas 3 paisas 2 occurred.6. that on 3.6.1959, at the time of hearing the appeal under section 21(4) of the act, the assistant director gave one karam wide and 50 karams long pahi in killa no. 861 owned by the applicant provided to ishar s ingh s/o sehna singh. by providing this pahi, further deficiency of 0 rupee 1 anna 2 paisas caused to the applicant. in this way the total deficiency comes to rupee 1 annas 5.7. that in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2004 (HC)

Thapar Agro Mills Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-27-2004

Reported in : II(2005)BC208

virender singh, j.1. m/s. thapar agro mills ltd. through sh. satish thapar, its managing director-cum-chairman are facing trial in a complaint (annexure p1) filed by the haryana state industrial development corporation ltd., the respondent-herein under section 138 read with section 141 of the negotiable instruments act (for short the act) on account of dishonour of cheques no. rgb 142527 dated 20.9.1995 for rs. 6.25 lacs and 15 other cheques of different dates, which were also dishonoured.2. a process was issued against the petitioners by the concerned court. petitioner no. 2 filed an application dated 14.8.2000 (annexure p5) for dismissal of the complaint mainly on the ground that the present complaint had not been filed by legally and validly authorized person and as such the complaint is not sustainable in the eye of law. the said application stands dismissed by the judicial magistrate 1st class, chandigarh vide order dated 12.2.2001 (annexure p-7). hence this petition for quashing of the complaint and the order dated 12.2.2001.3. record reveals that respondent no. 2 is only a proforma party. respondent no. 1 has filed its reply. this proceedings before the trial, court were stayed by this court way back on may 4, 2001.4. i have heard mr. puneet bali, learned counsel for the petitioner, mr. dheeraj chawla, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and with their assistance have gone through the entire records,5. mr. bali has contended that m/s. thapar agro mills ltd. has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2004 (HC)

Bachan Singh (Died) Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. Santokh Singh, P.C.S. an ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-07-2004

Reported in : (2004)136PLR735

s.s. nijjar, j.1. this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order passed by respondent no. 1 dated 30.8.1982, annexure p6.2. the petitioner is a land-owner of village chohla sahib, tehsil tarn taran, district amritsar. the respondents are also land-owners and the parties have a joint khe-wat. besides respondents no.2 to ii, there are numerous other co-sharers. they have, however, never agitated the matter in any proceedings. the consolidation proceedings in the village started in 1953-54 under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the act'). repartition under section 21(1) of the act was carried out on 30.3.1954. according to the provisions of the scheme, it was provided that the land of the right holders on the circular road shall be allotted to them and it shall not be disturbed during the consolidation proceedings. the land was originally in possession of the father of the petitioner. after the death of the petitioner's father, the land continued to be in possession of the petitioner. in 1974, the petitioner came to know that the land had been allotted to the respondents arid other co-sharers against the provisions of the scheme. he, therefore, filed a petition under section 42 of the act before the additional director, consolidation of holdings on 29.3.1974, notice of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2004 (HC)

Gurnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-12-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR317

surya kant, j.1. this writ petition has been directed by the petitioner for seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order-cum-notice dated 7.8.1985 (annexure p1) whereby his land measuring 59 kanals 10 marlas was ordered to be attached under section 63(b) of the punjab cooperative societies act, 1961 due to alleged non payment of loan amounting to rs. 6600/- recoverable from the petitioner in terms of an award dated 26.5.75 and 6.4.1976.2. the facts, as stated by the petitioner, are that he was elected sarpanch of gram panchayat jaial for three consecutive terms and is a prominent political worker of his area; that the impugned order dated 7.8.1985 had been issued by the deputy director, cooperative societies, bhatinda attaching his land measuring 59 kanals 10 marlas with an attempt to declare him defaulter; he apprehends that arrest of warrant had also been issued; that the petitioner had repaid the loan long time back and nothing was due from him; that the arbitration proceedings appear to have been conducted at his back inasmuch as no notice of the proceedings was ever issued or served upon him; the petitioner alleges that the award is nonest and even after the alleged award was given, no notice of any kind was served upon him; that the petitioner is a highly respectable person of the area and the impugned proceedings have been initiated to defame him; that the impugned order dated 7.8.1985 (annexure p1) has been issued in contravention of the statutory .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2004 (HC)

Ved Parkash, P.R.T.C. Employee Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-11-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR327

satish kumar mittal, j.1. this order shall dispose of criminal revision nos. 318, 343 and 856 of 1999, which have been filed by three different accused against the order dated 11.12.1998 vide which charge has been framed against them by the learned chief judicial magistrate, patiala, under sections 379/409 and 120-b ipc in case fir no. 154 dated 5.7.1998 registered at p.s. kotwali, patiala. however, the facts are taken from criminal revision no. 318 of 1999. 2. the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the said order was totally a non-speaking and cryptic order in which no discussion has been made and no reason has been recorded for framing the charge against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections.3. this court issued notice of motion in this case on october 31, 2000, on the basis of the following contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner;-'contends that no specific order supported by reasons has been passed whether a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. in fact, the order passed on 11.12.1998 is non-speaking, sketchy and cryptic one.'subsequently, the record of the trial court was also called for.4. fir in this case was lodged against the petitioner on 5.7.1998, on the basis of the complaint written by the general manager, prtc patiala-ii to the senior supdt. of police, patiala. in the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner and his other co-accused while on duty as sub inspectors and who were having .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2004 (HC)

Jamuna Devi Vs. Sarbati Devi Through L.Rs.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-20-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR547

k.c. gupta, j. 1. this appeal has been instituted by the defendant, smt. jamuna devi, against judgment dated 8.5.1990 passed by additional district judge, faridabad, whereby he set aside the judgment and order dated 4.8.1988 passed by sub judge iind class, faridabad, in favour of the appellant and allowed the claim of the respondent-plaintiff and decree for possession in respect of the suit land was passed against the appellant.2. briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff, smt. sarbati devi, and her brother, suraj bhan were owners in possession in equal shares of the agriculture land measuring 78 kanals 13 marlas situated in revenue estate of village ladholi, tehsil ballabgarh, district faridabad. suraj bhan had filed a civil suit against the respondent for declaration to the fact that he be declared as owner of the share of the respondent in the suit land as the respondent had agreed to part with the share by mutual consent. the said suit was decreed in favour of suraj bhan on 17.3.1973 by sub judge 1st class, ballabgarh and in this manner suraj bhan became owner of the whole of the land measuring 78 kanals 13 marlas. it was further alleged that suraj bhan had no concern with smt. champi and her daughter, jamuna devi, appellant and on the other hand, smt. champi had given birth to smt. jamuna devi from the loins of rattan lal.3. it was next averred that smt. jamuna devi never resided with sh. suraj bhan and was not brought up by him. it was further alleged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2004 (HC)

Ved Parkash Vs. Bhana Alias Jai Bhagwan

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-24-2004

Reported in : 2004CriLJ3237

ordersatish kumar mittal, j.1. the petitioner ved parkash, who is proprietor of m/s. saini beej bhandar, opposite new grain market, kurukshetra, has filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the complaint dated 14-3-2001 (annexure p-1) filed under section 420, ipc by the respondent against him as well as the summoning order dated 20-2-2002 (annexure p-2).2. the petitioner is a registered dealer who sells the certified seeds of various companies. the respondent, describing himself as an agriculturist, filed the complaint dated 14-3-2001 (annexure p-1) under section 420, ipc against the petitioner in the court of chief judicial magistrate, kurukshetra, by alleging that in the month of september, 2000, the petitioner along with some company officials took out a wide publicity in his village and informed the farmers including the respondent that the quality of the seeds of peas supplied by the petitioner is of good quality. it was further alleged by the respondent that on 18-9-2000 he had purchased 30 kgs. of seeds of peas from the petitioner, which were sown by him in his fields, but the same were not germinated. it was alleged that the seeds were of poor quality. the respondent further alleged that on 3-10-2000, he again visited the shop of the petitioner and purchased another peas seeds for a sum of rs. 1,500/- weighing 40 kgs. the same were also sown in the field but they too did not yield proper crop. in the complaint (annexure p-1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

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