Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Daya Kishan v. Chander Pati etc.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
RSA No.4064 of 2004
Daya Kishan
v.
Chander Pati etc.
{Decided on 20/07/2009}
For the Appellant: Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Surinder Saini, Advocate.
(A) Limitation Act, 1963--Adverse Possession--No evidence of hostile possession from its inception to knowledge of real owner--Plea of adverse possession not tenable.
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100--Appeal--Appellant proceeded proceedings dismissed in 1996--No grievance raised against order passed--Filed appeal after nine months that too without application for condonation of delay--Took another three years to file application for condonation of delay--Appellant not bonafide litigant prosecuting with due allegiance--No reason to grant further indulgence to appellant to prosecute proceeding at this stage. (P.11&12)

------------
Surya Parkash v. Vinod & Ors.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 2760 of 2008
Surya Parkash & Ors.
v.
Vinod & Ors.
{Decided on 25/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Chanakya Pandit, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 & 2: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3 to 5: Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG Haryana.
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961, S.7--Unauthorized Possession--Allegation against the petitioners that they have encroached Rasta to the extent of one Karam--Petitioner raised construction of house since long leaving sufficient passage at the spot--Proceedings of ejectment taken on private complaint and ejectment order passed--Petitioner relegated to represent to the Gram Panchayat--Appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to make representation before the Gram Panchayat--Gram Panchayat may consider the same in accordance with law and if they decide that this encroachment can be regularised on terms and conditions considered appropriate.
-------------------
Bachan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh…
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RFA No.3712 of 1999
Bachan Singh & Ors.
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh, through the Land Acquisition Collector,
{Decided on 27/04/2009}
For the Appellants in RFA Nos.3712,3791,3822,3823 and
3738 of 1999, 171 of 2000: Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Appellants in RFA Nos. 632 and 633 of 2000: Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate.
For Appellants in other RFAs: None.
For the Respondents /U.T. Chandigarh in RFA Nos.3712, 3791, 3738, 3814,
3822, 3823 of 1999, 559,632,633,1169,41 of 2000: Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent/U.T. Chandigarh in RFA No.171 of 2000: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation--Power of High Court to enhance compensation not subjected to the claim of party--Party claimed less market value--High Court competent to award the market value much more than that
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.18 and 4--Compensation assessed by Reference Court--High court enhanced the compensation--Power of High Court to enhance compensation not subjected to the claim of party--Party claimed less market value--High Court awarded the market value much more than that--Competent--In case of any short fall in respect of the Court fee, the same shall be made good by the claimants.
----------------