O&M) CHUHAR SINGH & ORS v. Versus
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105+203 Decided on : 25.08.2025 CM-5987-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-691-2015 (O&M) SWARAN KAUR AND ANR JASWINDER SINGH & ORS LPA-1753-2014 (O&M) CHUHAR SINGH & ORS Versus Versus . .Appellants . . . Respondents . .Appellants JASWINDER SINGH & ORS . . . Respondents LPA-2020 -2014 (O&M) GURDEEP SINGH & ORS Versus . .Appellants JASWINDER SINGH & ORS . . . Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr.Udayveer Singh, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-1753-2014 & LPA-2020-2014. Mr. S. S. Rangi, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-691-2015. Mr. TPS Chawla, Sr. DAG, Punjab. RIYA 2025.08.28 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5987-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-691-2015 (O&M) and connected case -2- Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) Present bunch of appeals, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together. CM-5987-LPA-2025 LPA-691-2015 in/and The prayer in the present application is for impleading the legal representatives of Smt. Swarn Kaur (since deceased) and to place on record the amended memo of parties on record. Notice of the application. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2 and raises no objection in case the prayer made in the present application is allowed. Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the present application, the same is allowed. Consequently, the LRs of Smt. Swarn Kaur (since deceased), whose name are mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the present application are impleaded as legal representatives of Smt. Swarn Kaur (since deceased) and amended memo of parties is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. LPA-691-2015 RIYA 2025.08.28 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5987-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-691-2015 (O&M) and connected case -3- LPA-1753-2014 LPA-2020 -2014 1. In the present appeals, the challenge is to the order dated
Decision
15.05.2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition bearing CWP No. 2051 of 1992 filed by Chandi @ Chand Kaur i.e. Predecessor of respondents No. 1 & 2 has been allowed and the order passed by the Revenue Authority has been set-aside. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argues that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Patiala, was perfectly valid and legal and the same has been set-aside without any valid justification and even the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.05.2014, ignores the relevant facts and therefore, the judgment of the learned Singe Judge, dated 15.05.2014 is liable to be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further argues that the appellants who are the subsequent purchaser of land belonging to Ravinder Singh who was a khewatdar at the time of the death of Rur Singh in the year 1951, the appellants have to be treated as a joint Khwetdar alongwith Chandi @ Chand Kaur for all intents and purposes. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Ravinder Singh sold certain land belonging to him in the year 1957 i.e. after the death of Rur Singh in the year 1951 and the similarly situated purchasers from Ravinder Singh also claimed the same benefits from the Civil Court to be treated as a Joint Khewatdar alongwith Chandi @ Chand Kaur which civil suit was dismissed by the Competent Court of law and even the RSA preferred upto this Court stood dismissed whereby a findings have been RIYA 2025.08.28 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5987-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-691-2015 (O&M) and connected case -4- recorded that the purchasers who purchased the land from Ravinder Singh in the year 1957 cannot be declared as a joint Khewatdars alongwith Chandi @ Chand Kaur. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that ignoring the said judgments, the revenue authorities again reconsidered the said issue and granted certain benefits to the claimants/appellants against the interest of Chandi @ Chand Kaur, which order granting such benefit was challenged in the aforesaid writ petition and after appreciating all the facts and by recording the findings that the appellants herein were similarly situated as the earlier purchaser of the land belonging to Ravinder Singh and as similar plea made by such purchasers had already finality upto this Court werhein it had been declared that the subsequent purchaser from Ravinder Singh in the year 1957 cannot be declared as joint khewatdar with Chandi @ Chand Kaur, the claim of the appellants herein who purchased the land in the year 2011 had rightly been rejected so as to declare them joint khewatdar as Chandi @ Chand Kaur. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 6. The judgment of the learned Single judge can only be interfered in case the same is shown to be perverse to the facts and evidence brought on record. 7. In the present case, rather than pointing out any perversity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.05.2014, learned counsel for the appellants is rather trying to re-argue the case again so as to convince this Court to come at a different conclusion then the one arrived at by the RIYA 2025.08.28 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5987-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-691-2015 (O&M) and connected case -5- learned Single Judge, which is not permissible. 8. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the appellants concedes the fact that the similarly situated purchasers of land from Ravinder Singh, who purchased the land back in the year 1957 also claimed the same benefit so as to be treated as joint khewatdar with Chandi @ Chand Kaur but the said claim was dismissed and the findings of the said suit have already been upheld upto this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that how the appellants herein who purchased the land from Ravinder Singh in the yeaar 2011 are different than the purchasers of the land from Ravinder Singh who purchase the same in the year 1957, which could allow to accept their claim. 10. In the absence of any such differentiating factor being pointed out, the appellants have to be treated on the same footing as the purchasers of the land from Ravinder Singh who purchase the land in the year 1957 and were denied the same benefits as being claimed by the appellants herein. 11. It may also be noticed that, in LPA-1753-2014 and LPA-2020 - 2014, the appellants are the same who had filed the civil suit against Chandi @ Chand Kaur and had lost upto this Court but again in futile started the same proceedings before the revenue Court. 12 Once, the appellants in the aforesaid appeals had already lost the same battle upto this Court qua the same issue and suffered a findings that they cannot be treated as joint khewatdars with Chandi @ Chand Kaur, claiming the same benefits before the Revenue Court thereafter, is not RIYA 2025.08.28 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5987-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-691-2015 (O&M) and connected case -6- maintainable. 13. 14. No other argument has been raised. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:7) (cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:16) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:23)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:16)(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:26) Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected 15. 16. of. 17. case. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 25.08.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No RIYA 2025.08.28 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document