Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    Law Finder: 2014 (54) RCR (Civil) Recent Civil Reports 253

    Uploaded by

    GURMUKH SINGH
    The document summarizes a court case in India regarding an eviction order. 1) The petitioner challenged eviction orders passed by authorities to evict him from land. He argued a civil court had passed a judgment in 1989 declaring he owned the land through adverse possession. 2) While the lower courts did not consider the civil court judgment, any judgment passed without jurisdiction is null. The lower courts were required to consider the prior civil court judgment before ruling on eviction. 3) The high court set aside the eviction orders and remanded the case back to the lower collector to reconsider in light of the 1989 civil court judgment, directing a decision within 3 months.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Law Finder: 2014 (54) RCR (Civil) Recent Civil Reports 253

    Uploaded by

    GURMUKH SINGH
    104 views3 pages
    The document summarizes a court case in India regarding an eviction order. 1) The petitioner challenged eviction orders passed by authorities to evict him from land. He argued a civil court had passed a judgment in 1989 declaring he owned the land through adverse possession. 2) While the lower courts did not consider the civil court judgment, any judgment passed without jurisdiction is null. The lower courts were required to consider the prior civil court judgment before ruling on eviction. 3) The high court set aside the eviction orders and remanded the case back to the lower collector to reconsider in light of the 1989 civil court judgment, directing a decision within 3 months.

    Original Title

    LawFinder_0000633442 (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case in India regarding an eviction order. 1) The petitioner challenged eviction orders passed by authorities to evict him from land. He argued a civil court had passed a judgment in 1989 declaring he owned the land through adverse possession. 2) While the lower courts did not consider the civil court judgment, any judgment passed without jurisdiction is null. The lower courts were required to consider the prior civil court judgment before ruling on eviction. 3) The high court set aside the eviction orders and remanded the case back to the lower collector to reconsider in light of the 1989 civil court judgment, directing a decision within 3 months.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    104 views3 pages

    Law Finder: 2014 (54) RCR (Civil) Recent Civil Reports 253

    Uploaded by

    GURMUKH SINGH
    The document summarizes a court case in India regarding an eviction order. 1) The petitioner challenged eviction orders passed by authorities to evict him from land. He argued a civil court had passed a judgment in 1989 declaring he owned the land through adverse possession. 2) While the lower courts did not consider the civil court judgment, any judgment passed without jurisdiction is null. The lower courts were required to consider the prior civil court judgment before ruling on eviction. 3) The high court set aside the eviction orders and remanded the case back to the lower collector to reconsider in light of the 1989 civil court judgment, directing a decision within 3 months.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    LAW FINDER

    WWW.LAWFINDERLIVE.COM
    Submitted By: Sh.Kamal K.Sharma,Advocate
    Photo-print from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.
    2014(2) L.A.R. 598 : 2014(54) R.C.R.(Civil) 253

    2014(54) RCR (Civil) Recent Civil Reports 253


    Petition allowed.
    ------
    Karnail Singh v. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division (P&H)
    Law Finder Doc Id #633442
    PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Before :- Paramjeet Singh, J.
    CWP No. 11818 of 1993. Decided on 30.7.2014.
    Karnail Singh(deceased) through LRs - Petitioner
    Versus
    The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and others - Respondents
    For the Petitioner :- S.C Chhabra, Advocate.
    For the Respondents :- Suresh Singla, Addl. A.G, Punjab.
    For the Respondent No. 4 :- Gaurav Tangri, Advocate.
    Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, Section 4
    - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 7 - Eviction order -
    Civil Court decree - Non-consideration of - It is settled principle of law that any
    judgment and decree passed by the Court without jurisdiction is a nullity - The
    defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect
    of the subject matter, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree -
    Such a defect cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties - A person in
    adverse possession of the property cannot seek declaration to the effect that such
    adverse possession has matured into ownership - If any suit is filed against the person
    who is in adverse possession then he can take plea of adverse possession as a defence -
    Fact remains that the judgment and decree although was produced before the Courts
    below, but has not been considered and the eviction has been ordered - Authorities
    below were required to consider the said judgment and decree and thereafter should
    have passed the orders - Impugned eviction order, set aside - Matter remitted back to
    the Collector for decision afresh by considering the judgment and decree - Petition
    disposed of.
    [Para 8]
    Cases referred :-
    Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala, 2013(4) RCR (c) 703.
    Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340.
    JUDGMENT
    Paramjeet Singh, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
    the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.09.1992(Annexure-P4) passed by
    the Collector, Ferozepur and order dated 01.06.1993(Annexure P-5) passed by the
    Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur.
    LAW FINDER
    WWW.LAWFINDERLIVE.COM
    Submitted By: Sh.Kamal K.Sharma,Advocate
    Photo-print from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

    254 Karnail Singh v. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division (P&H)


    2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition are to the effect that
    respondent No.3- Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 4 and 5 of the Punjab
    Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1973 read with Section 7 of
    the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act 1961 for ejectment of Karnail Singh
    original petitioner who is now represented by his Legal representatives. The learned
    Collector after considering the facts, ordered the eviction of the petitioner and also ordered
    recovery of the amount as per rules. Against that, Karnail Singh, preferred an appeal
    before the Commissioner which has been dismissed. Hence this writ petition.
    3. On an application moved by respondent No.4 it was impleaded as such vide order dated
    04.01.1994 as the area of the Gram Panchayat/Respondent No.3 had already been included
    in the Notified Area Committee/respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 filed its written
    statement and pleaded that area of Gram Panchayat/Respondent No.3 had been included in
    the Notified Area Committee vide notification dated 11.01.1993 as such the property of
    Gram Panchayat stood vested in respondent No.4. It is averred that the petitioners are in
    illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit land; mutations have been wrongly got
    sanctioned and in fact the mutation has also been sanctioned in the name of the answering
    respondent. It was further pleaded that judgment and decree dated 22.07.1989 is null and
    void and is not binding on the rights of respondent Nos.3 and 4. It was prayed that writ
    petition be dismissed as the orders of the authorities below are legal and valid.
    4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
    5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that Civil Court has
    passed the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1989(Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2). In
    the judgment, it has been declared that the petitioner has become the owner of the suit land
    by way of adverse possession and that judgment has become final as it has not been
    challenged till date. The Authorities under the Punjab Public Premises and Lands
    (Eviction and Rent Recovery)Act, 1973 are bound to follow the decree of the Civil Court.
    6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has vehemently contended that
    judgment and decree dated 22.07.1989 is null and void and does not affect the rights of
    respondent No.4. The proceedings against the petitioners, now represented through his
    Legal representatives, have rightly been initiated and eviction order has been passed
    accordingly. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that plea
    of adverse possession is a plea of defence and no declaration with regard to the ownership
    can be granted by Civil Court, on the basis of adverse possession, it is only a plea of
    defence.
    7. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.
    8. Perusal of the record indicates that judgment and decree dated 22.07.1989(Annexure P-
    1 and P-2) has been passed against the Gram Panchayat in whose footsteps respondent
    No.4 had stepped, which has not been challenged, but the fact remains that it is settled
    principle of law that any judgment and decree passed by the Court without jurisdiction is a
    nullity. The defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in
    respect of the subject matter, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree.
    Such a defect cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme
    Court in Kiran Singh and others v. Chaman Paswan and others) AIR 1954 SC 340 has
    categorically held to the above effect. Not only that, catena of judgments of this Court and
    LAW FINDER
    WWW.LAWFINDERLIVE.COM
    Submitted By: Sh.Kamal K.Sharma,Advocate
    Photo-print from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

    2014(54) RCR (Civil) Recent Civil Reports 255


    the Apex Court it has been held that a person in adverse possession of the property cannot
    seek declaration to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. If
    any suit is filed against the person who is in adverse possession then he can take plea of
    adverse possession as a defence. Reference in this regard can be made to the recent
    judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village
    Sirthala and another), 2013(4) RCR (c) 703. However, the fact remains that the judgment
    and decree dated 22.07.1989, although was produced before the Courts below, but has not
    been considered and the eviction has been ordered. The Authorities below were required to
    consider the said judgment and decree and thereafter should have passed the orders.
    Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the fact that case is already quite old
    and the petitioners are continuing in possession, this Court deem it fit and appropriate that
    the impugned orders be set aside and case be remanded to the Collector for decision afresh
    by considering the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1989 (Annexure P-1 and P-2).
    Ordered accordingly. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the
    date of receipt of copy of this order, after due notice to the parties. If the judgment and
    decree is already on record, then the Collector shall consider the same and pass orders. If
    the judgment and decree is not on record then the petitioner will be at liberty to move an
    application for additional evidence and thereafter the appropriate order shall be passed.
    9. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
    10. No costs.
    Order accordingly.
    ------
    Ram Chand v. State of Haryana (P&H)(DB)
    Law Finder Doc Id #633445
    PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    (DB)
    Before :- Surya Kant and Jaspal Singh, JJ.
    Civil Writ Petition No. 8174 of 2014. Decided on 26.8.2014.
    Ram Chand - Petitioner
    Versus
    State of Haryana and others - Respondents
    For the Petitioner :- Ajay Jain, Advocate.
    A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 7 - Eviction order
    - Petitioner has encroached upon a substantial part of the public street - In these
    circumstances, no fault can be found with the eviction order which is accordingly
    upheld.
    [Para 2]
    B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 12(4) -
    Encroachment over street - Rule 12(4) can be invoked only in a case where
    encroachment of Gram Panchayat land does not cause obstruction and inconvenience

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy