Kamal Alang & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Jan 2011
- Bench
- RAM CHAND GUPTA
Outcome
Disposed of
The present petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.K.K.Goel, Advocate and Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab and Ms.Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab for the respondents. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned orders dated
30.1.2009 and 3.11.2009, Annexures P1 and P2, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar and learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, respectively, vide which petitioner-defendants were restrained from raising construction or alienating the property in dispute. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders. While issuing notice of motion on the undertaking of the counsel for the petitioners, following order was passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 9.7.2010: “ Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are in exclusive possession of portion of the joint land over which they are raising construction. Reference in this behalf is made to final decree of partition dated 29.12.1960, Annexure P/13 allotting specific portions to predecessors of Civil Revision No.7608 of 2009(O&M) -2- respondents no.3 who is predecessor of the petitioners. It is also stated that the petitioners undertake not to claim any compensation for the construction that may be raised in aforesaid portion of the suit land and on the basis of construction, the petitioners shall also not claim any equity or preferential right to allotment of the said portion in the event of partition. Notice of motion to respondent nos.1 and 2 only for
Operative part
10.9.2010. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners would be bound by the undertaking reflecting in the aforementioned order and that the impugned orders may be modified to this extent only. Learned State counsel also stated that if petitioners are directed to bound by the said undertaking, respondent-State has no objection if the impugned orders are modified to that extent. Hence, in view of these facts, the impugned orders are modified in terms of undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner- defendants in the aforementioned order dated 9.7.2010. Petitioner- defendants are permitted to raise construction over the portion of joint land to the extent of their share, which is in their exclusive possession subject to condition that they would not claim any compensation for the construction that may be raised in the aforesaid portion of the suit land and on the basis of construction, they would not claim any equity or preferential right to allotment of the said portion in the event of partition. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the final decision of this case on merit. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
6.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The present petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 06 Jan 2011. The bench was RAM CHAND GUPTA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.