NARINDER KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2016-5-457
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 09,2016

Narinder Kaur And Others Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2014 passed in CWP No.19741 of 2010 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition filed by the appellants, so also the order dated 19.09.2015 in review petition.
(2.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, (i) the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the principles of res judicata were applicable in relation to the earlier judgment of the lower Appellate Court, when as a matter of fact, the said Court had reserved the liberty in favour of the appellants to raise a claim for the purchase of the disputed land and to seek appropriate relief, (ii) the learned Single Judge committed an error in ignoring the fact that the predecessors of the appellants were shown in the possession of the suit land as tenant for the year 1954-1955 and when application to Naib Tehsildar was made to supply khasra girdawari from Kharif 1959 to Rabi 1967 to show the possession of the appellants, the Halka Patwari had expressed his inability to supply the same on the ground that the same was not available, (iii) the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the material aspect namely, that the application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Lands Tenures Act, 1953 (for short 'Act') was allowed by the State on 30.10.1991 by which the applicants were asked to deposit Rs. 12,000 per acre, total Rs. 1,27,650/- and out of which the appellants in fact had deposited Rs. 90,440/-. The appellants are still ready and willing to deposit the balance amount. The Act of 1953 being a beneficial legislation, protection to the tenant was required to be liberally given. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, prayed that the CWP No.19741 of 2010 be allowed.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellants for considerable length. We have perused the entire record so also the documents referred to us by him. We have also perused the reasons given by the learned Single Judge.;


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