Cr No. 360 of 2013. Vs. Cr No. 360 of 2013.

Cr No. 360 of 2013. vs Cr No. 360 of 2013.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 21, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1070982

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1070982
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jan 21, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cr No. 360 of 2013.

Respondent

Cr No. 360 of 2013.

Excerpt

.....counsel appears on behalf of respondent no.1. ms.ambika sood, dag, punjab appears on behalf of respondents no.2 to 5.”4. reference petition under section 18 of the land acquisition act, 1894 filed by gurdev singh-petitioner land owner was pending before additional district judge, fatehgarh sahib for adjudication with regard to land measuring 1 kanal, 5 ½ marlas situated in village jatana ucha. during pendency of reference, it revealed that in fact, notification for the acquisition of land pertained to 1 kanal 10 marlas but inadvertently it was mentioned as 1 kanals 5 ½ marlas. the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the reference but the same was dismissed by the reference court by order dated september 11th, 2012 (annexure p-4).against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.”5. learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon report of the patwari dated february 14th, 2012 duly approved by the kanungo and tehsildar (annexure p-7).it depicts that land of the petitioner which was acquired was 1 kanal 9 marlas 8 sarsai, that is, one sarsai less than 1 kanal 10 marlas and mutation to that effect has also been sanctioned in favour of northern railways, central government. cr no.360 of 2013. (2) 6. since the land owned by the petitioner which was acquired was 1 kanal 9 marlas 8 sarsai and in the reference, it was mentioned as 1 kanal 5 ½ marlas so, it was a question of fact as to what exact area was acquired. the amendment shall not in any manner change the nature of the case rather it only rectifies the bonafide mistake which can well be permitted. so, the revision petition is allowed. the impugned order (annexure p-4) is set-aside and the application seeking amendment is allowed. 21.1.2013 (nawab singh) sn judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.360 of 2013.

Date of Decision:

21. 1.2013.

Gurdev Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLR Mr.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for the petitioner.

NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Heard.”

2. Notice of motion.”

3. Mr.Jagish Marwah, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.1.

Ms.Ambika Sood, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5.”

4. Reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by Gurdev Singh-petitioner land owner was pending before Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib for adjudication with regard to land measuring 1 kanal, 5 ½ marlas situated in village Jatana Ucha.

During pendency of reference, it revealed that in fact, notification for the acquisition of land pertained to 1 Kanal 10 Marlas but inadvertently it was mentioned as 1 Kanals 5 ½ Marlas.

The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the Reference but the same was dismissed by the Reference Court by order dated September 11th, 2012 (Annexure P-4).Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon report of the Patwari dated February 14th, 2012 duly approved by the Kanungo and Tehsildar (Annexure P-7).It depicts that land of the petitioner which was acquired was 1 Kanal 9 Marlas 8 Sarsai, that is, one sarsai less than 1 Kanal 10 marlas and mutation to that effect has also been sanctioned in favour of Northern Railways, Central Government.

CR No.360 of 2013.

(2) 6.

Since the land owned by the petitioner which was acquired was 1 Kanal 9 Marlas 8 Sarsai and in the reference, it was mentioned as 1 kanal 5 ½ Marlas so, it was a question of fact as to what exact area was acquired.

The amendment shall not in any manner change the nature of the case rather it only rectifies the bonafide mistake which can well be permitted.

So, the revision petition is allowed.

The impugned order (Annexure P-4) is set-aside and the application seeking amendment is allowed.

21.1.2013 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2013 Same Parties Cr No. 360 of 2013. vs Cr No. 360 of 2013. Same Subject Land Acquisition