SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(P&H) 849

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Jagbir Singh
Versus
Rampat
Regular Second Appeal No. 3693 of 1986,
Decided On : MARCH 22, 2011

Land Acquisition--Pre-emptor steps into the shoes of the vendee--Pre-emptors are entitled to get the compensation of land.

Headnote:(A) Pre-emption Act, 1913--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.20, R.14,--Pre-emption--Right of pre-emptors--Decree in pre-emption suit--After the pre-emptor acquires the decree, name of the vendee is rubbed from the sale deed and is replaced by that of the pre-emptor--The pre-emptor steps into the shoes of the vendee insofar as the land in dispute is concerned--His title had accrued immediately, the moment he deposits the pre-emption amount as directed in the decree--It is not necessary that possession should be delivered to him. (Para 15)

       (B) Land Acquisition Act, S.16--Pre-emption Act, 1913--Acquisition of land--Rights of pre-emptors--Compensation--Plaintiff filed suit for pre-emption which was decreed in his favour--In the meanwhile land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act--The pre-emptor steps into the shoes of the vendee--Pre-emptors are entitled to get the compensation of land. (Para 15 to 16)

       

Judgment

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. The defendants/vendees are in second appeal in a suit for preemption, which has been decreed by both the Courts below on the ground of superior right of co-sharer.

2. In brief, the plaintiffs filed suit for possession by way of preemption claiming a superior right of co-sharer in respect of land measuring 15 Kanals 13 Marias situated in Badh Malik, Sonepat, which was sold by vendor/defendant No.3 to the vendees/defendants No.1 & 2 for a consideration of Rs.22,000/- vide registered sale deed 8.1.1982. The vendees contested the suit only on the ground that the plaintiffs are not co-sharers and thus, have no locus standi. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 31.8.1984, which reads as under:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs have superior right of pre-emption? OPP

2. Whether the defendants are entitled to stamp & registration charges? OPD

3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

4. Whether the proper court fee has not been affixed on the plaint? OPD

5. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s 35-A of CPC? OPD

6. Relief."

3. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15.9.1986 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession in respect of land bearing Killa No. 10/3(7-4), 8(7- 12), 13/2(0-17), measuring 15 Kanals 13 Marias on payment of Rs.25,100/- (Rs.22.000/- as sale price Rs.2,750/- as stamp charges Rs.288.75/- as registration charges and Rs.61.25 as incidental expenses) on or before 1.10.1986 and it was made clear that in case of default of non-payment of aforesaid amount his suit would be deemed to be dismissed. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, pursuant to which plaintiffs were required to deposit the arnount of Rs.25,100/- in the stipulated time, the vendees filed First Appeal in which finding of the trail Court was assailed only on issue No.1 that the plaintiffs were not co-sharers and had no superior right to preempt the sale. The learned Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court only to the extent that vendor had sold 7 Kanals 16 Marias of land in stead of 15 Kanals 13 Marias, therefore, the decree shall be deemed to be in respect of 7 Kanals 16 Marias of land. With this modification, the appeal of the vendees was dismissed on 6.11.1986. The vendees preferred second appeal in this Court which was admitted on 8.1.1987 and their dispossession was stayed. During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiffs filed CM No.11661-C-2008 for the purpose of seeking exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P1 and P2 and for taking them on record and CM No.11662-C-2008 for stay. Notice in the application CM No.11662-C-2008 was issued on 4.12.2008 for 8.12.2008 and on that day it was agreed between the parties that the main appeal may be decided and the application shall be heard with the main appeal.

4. I had heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties in this case and reserved the judgment on 18.3.2011.

5. Since CM No.11661-C-2008 was not earlier disposed of therefore, the same is hereby allowed as prayed for. In CM No.11662-C-2008, it is alleged by the plaintiffs that during the pendency of this appeal the land in dispute stood acquired vide notification dated 20.10.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) for the public purpose, namely, development of Industrial Sector 38. It is also alleged that the compensation of the acquired land is likely to be disbursed to the vendees who have been shown to be the interested persons in terms of Section 9 of the Act, which is evident from the notice (Annexure A-1), which has been taken on record while allowing CM No.11661-C-2008. It is thus, prayed in CM No.11662-C-2008 that the disbursement of compensation arising out of the acquired land to the vendees may be stayed during the pendency of this Appeal.

6. The fate of this application, which was ordered to be heard along with the














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top