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

1993 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ISWAR SINGH AND ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12236-1993 (O&M)

Date of decision : 11.06.2025 ISHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS …Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Advocate Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Hakikat Grewal, Advocate and Mr. Sahil Sehrawat, Adocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana.

HARSH BUNGER, J.

CM-9208-2023 This is an application for placing on record Annexures A-1 to A-3.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CWP-12236-1993 Prayer in the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 30.04.1992 (Annexure P-11) and order dated

04.02.1993 (Annexure P-13).

2. Briefly, the pleaded case of the petitioners is that one Sh. Gurbaksh Singh Sibia, was a big land owner, who was owning lands in Village Gobindpura and Kishanpura, Tehsil and District Jind. Petitioners claim that they were old tenants under Sh. Gurbaksh Singh Sibia, on the following lands :-

2.1 Petitioners further claim that in the year 1960, Sh. Gurbaksh Singh Sibia, sold the entire land under the possession of petitioner Nos.2, 4 and 5 namely, Munna Lal, Malvinder Singh and Gurdev Singh, respectively; to the said petitioner Nos.2, 4 and 5 and in respect of remaining petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 6 namely, Ishwar Singh, Bakshish Singh and Narinder Singh, the area under their possession was sold to them for consideration.

2.2 Petitioners also claim that in the year 1972, there arose some dispute between Sh. Gurbaksh Singh Sibia and the petitioners, whereupon the petitioners filed Civil Suits before the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Jind (Haryana) seeking declaration that they are the exclusive owners of the lands under their possession (as noticed above). Petitioners state that on 25.08.1972, the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Jind passed the declaratory decrees in favour of the petitioners, declaring them to be the full and exclusive owners of the lands as mentioned above. It is also claimed that on the basis of the above referred decrees, mutations were sanctioned in favour of petitioners on 26.12.1973 and 27.12.1973.

2.3 It is required to be noticed herein that the petitioners have not placed on record any sale deed in support of their plea that Gurbaksh Singh had sold the land mentioned above in favour of the petitioners. Further, only a true copy of decree dated 25.08.1972 in favour of petitioner No.2- Munna Lal has been attached with the writ petition and no other decree in favour of petitioners No.1, 3 to 6, is forthcoming. Still further, even the so-called mutations claimed to have been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 26.12.1973 and 27.12.1973, are also not forthcoming.

2.4 It is also pleaded by the petitioners that in the year 1980, Sh. Gurbaksh Singh Sibia, had bequeathed by way of Will dated

28.02.1980, the remaining holdings of petitioner No.1-Ishwar Singh, petitioner No.3-Bakshish Singh and petitioners No.6-Narinder Singh, to them.

2.5 Petitioners state that as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84, the petitioners are shown as `full owners in exclusive possession’ of the afore-said land. The jamabandi for the year 1983-84, in respect of each of the petitioners have been attached with the writ petition as Annexures P-2 to P-7. It is noticeable that the extent of areas reflected in the names of the petitioners in the afore-said revenue records does not match with the extent of area claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition (as reflected in the table extracted above).

2.6 It appears that the prescribed authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short `the 1972 Act’), while considering the declaration submitted by Sh. Gurbaksh Singh Sibia, under Section 9 of

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