BACHAN LAL S/O LATE HUKAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2011-9-460
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 20,2011

BACHAN LAL S/O LATE HUKAM CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954 (for short, the 1954 Act'), directing the sale deed executed jointly in the names of 2 nd respondent and one Mohinder Singh as invalid and also directing the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Amritsar, to issue a Conveyance Deed in the name of 2 nd respondent. The proceedings before the authorities came in the following fashion.
(2.) The 2 nd respondent-Pritam Kaur's husband was one Inder Singh and he was an evacuee to whom the Custodian had granted a lease of a house property in Amritsar. Inder Singh and Pritam Kaur were in possession of the house under the Custodian. After the coming into force of the 1954 Act, the property continued in possession of Inder Singh and Pritam Kaur. The said Act made provisions for transfer as a measure of compensation. Inder Singh had died in the year 1963 and after his death, it appears that yet another person Mohinder Singh, arrayed as the 3 rd respondent in the writ petition, started living in the same house with Pritam Kaur. The sale deed had been issued under the Act in recognition of the right as successor-in-interest of the lessee. On a purported joint statement of Pritam Kaur with Mohinder Singh, sale deed had been executed by the State in the joint names on 20.06.1966.
(3.) It is an admitted case that Mohinder Singh lived in the same house with Pritam Kaur. Mohinder Singh purported to transfer the half share which he claimed under the conveyance from the State in favour of the writ petitioner Shri Bachan Lal on 09.04.1969. The contention of Pritam Kaur was, she was residing at the back portion of the house, while Mohinder Singh was residing in the front portion and after the purchase by Bachan Lal, he closed the passage and created obstruction to have free access to her own portion. It appears that Pritam Kaur had filed a suit for an injunction for the obstruction caused by Bachan Lal and the suit ended in a compromise when both parties agreed that they shall stay in their respective portions without any obstruction by one against the other.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.