Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)153PLR473
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. The petitioner, who was elected as Panch of Gram Panchayat, village Holanwali, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur, in the elections held on 26.5.2008, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the interim order dated 18.7.2008, passed by the Election Tribunal, Ferozepur, whereby the petitioner has been restrained from working as Panch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat during the pendency of the election petition. A direction has also been sought to allow the petitioner to work and discharge the duties of Panch of the Gram Panchayat.2. The brief facts of the case are that in the elections held on 26.5.2008, the petitioner was elected as a Panch of the Gram Panchayat against the seat, meant for General category. His name was notified as elected Panch of the Gram Panchayat and he was also administered the oath of allegiance under Section 13 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)3PLR552
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.1. This common order shall dispose of 29 appeals bearing R.F.A. Nos. 1740 to 1762, 2273, 1272 of 1997, 1019, 1028, 1129 and 1009 of 1994 as common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals.2. Land measuring 31:25 acres situated in Village Mangalora Kadim was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') which was published in the official gazette on 26.8.1986 and followed by a notification of declaration dated 28.10.1986 published in the official gazette on 11.11.1986, at the public expense, for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of approaches and guide bunds etc. for proposed Yamuna bridge on Karnal-Meerut road in Karnal District; The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Karnal vide his award No. 54 for the year 1987-88 dated 18.2.1987 assessed the compensation @ Rs. 25,056/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 16,032/- per acre for Sailab land and Rs. 2,016/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Bund...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)154PLR292
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing letter dated 17.12.2004 (P-8) issued by the Estate Officer HUDA, Kaithal-respondent No. 3 refunding the earnest money of Rs. 59,500/- to the petitioner on the pretext that Booth No. 271, Sector 20, Kaithal, which was auction on 29.7.2004 in his favour has been withdrawn by the Administrator, HUDA, Hisar-respondent No. 2. A further prayer for quashing order dated 20.2.2007 (P-12), passed by the Estate Officer-Respondent No. 3, in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 3605 of 2005, rejecting the representation of the petitioner has been made. Still further it has been prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to allot one alternate booth site out of Booth Nos. 243 to 252, Sector 20 HUDA, Kaithal, which was allotted in the open auction in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder, has been found to be allotted in the name of Shri Sanjay Kumar son of Shri M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)156PLR40
Sham Sunder, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.8.2007, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which the Canter, bearing registration No. HRr14/1519 was ordered to be confiscated, to the State of Haryana, as per rules.2. The facts, in brief, are that Om Parkash, appellant was found transporting poppy husk, in Canter No. HR-14/1519. He was arrested. FIR No. 73 dated 20.5.2005 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only), Police Station Sadar, Sirsa, was registered against him. He was convicted vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 11.1.2007 and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for two years.3. Since the Canter bearing registration No. HR-14/1519 belonged to Gurnam Singh and Balraj Singh, in whose favour the same had been released on superdari, duri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)3PLR674
T.P.S. Mann, J.1. A suit for permanent injunction had been filed by Nathi Ram and Kalawati respondent Nos. 1 and 2 so as to restrain Ram Chander-petitioner herein from installing any tube-well on any part of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 50//7(8-13), Khewat No. 52/51, Khatauni No. 67, situated within the revenue estate of village Mehra and also for restraining the Electricity Board i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 5 from releasing any tube-well connection to Ram Chander-petitioner. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was also filed by Nathi Ram and Kalawati, which application was allowed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Jagadhri on 27.9.2006 and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were restrained from shifting the electric connection of tube-well in Khasra No. 7 of Rectangle No. 50 and also restrained the petitioner from installing any tube-well in the said khasra No. till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved of the same, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)153PLR383
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.C.M. No. 1368-C of 2007.1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 years 7 months and 9 days in filing the present appeal.2. In this application, the appellant has alleged that after passing of the judgment and decree dated 2.6.2001, the appellant/defendant filed a review petition bearing No. 19 of 2001 before the Additional District Judge, Narnaul on 17.7,2001 which was entertained by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul and the said review petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 4.12.2006. After dismissal order of the review petition, the appellant/applicant applied for the certified copy of the same on 6.12.2006 and the same was prepared on 9.12.2006 and delivery thereof was taken on 20.12.2006 and the Regular Second Appeal was filed on 11.1.2007 in this Court. It has been further averred in the application that the delay of 5 years 7 months and 9 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal was under the wrong impression and due to the fact that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)153PLR450
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. This is defendants second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 and additional agreement dated 30.12.1999 executed by the appellants in favour of the plaintiff regarding suit property has been decreed and the appellants have been restrained from alienating the suit property forcibly and illegally to any other person except the plaintiff-respondent.2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the disputed property is owned by the defendants. The defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of land measuring 19 biswas 4 biswasis vide agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 @ Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. At the time of the execution of the agreement, the respondents received Rs. 28,000/- in cash as earnest money from the plaintiff. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.12....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)156PLR273
Rajesh Bindal, J.1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 33 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition.2. R.F.A. Nos. 957, 1069, 1148, 1239, 1375 to 1380 and 1416 of 1997 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land,3. R.F.A. Nos. 1094 to 1103, 1156,1400 to 1410 have been filed by Kurukshetra Development Board and State of Haryana seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners.4. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 957 of 1997.5. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 8.1.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana acquired land measuring 24 acres and 3 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Darra Kalan, Thanesar for landscaping, roads, footpaths and various other development activities of Kurukshetra Development Board. The same was followed by notification dated 16.1.1992 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)156PLR275
Rajesh Bindal, J.1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 11 appeals, bearing R.F.A. Nos. 2783 to 2787, 2945 to 2948, 2985 and 3088 of 1989, as the same arise out of a common acquisition.2. R.F.A. No. 2787, 2783 to 2786 of 1989 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land.3. R.F.A. Nos. 2945 to 2948, 2985 and 3088 of 1989 have been filed by the State for reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners.4. In R.F.A. No. 3088 of 1989, the land owners have filed cross-objections seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.5. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 2787 of 1989.6. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 7.2.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana acquired land measuring 33 acres and 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Darra Kalan, Thanesar for foot paths and market. The same was followed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2009P& H73; (2009)153PLR469
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.1. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is that in case a testator bequeaths his property jointly to two lineal descendants by way of a Will and if one of the legatees dies during the life time of the testator, whether the bequeathed property would be taken away by other surviving legatee in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short 'the Act') or if the legatee dies during the life time of the testator leaving behind his mother as Class-I heir and has no lineal descendant, should the mother take the share of that legatee in view of Section 109 of the Act and whether mother is a lineal descendant.2. The facts firstThe appellant is the mother-in-law of respondent Bhupinder Kaur;Kartar Singh (deceased) had two sons called Ujjagar Singh and Saudagar Singh. Ujjagar Singh had a wife Surjit Kaur and two sons Harinder Singh and Avtar Singh. Harinder Singh had a wife Bhupinder Kaur and a minor son Amritpal Singh, whereas Avtar Sing...
Tag this Judgment!