← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/8066/2015disposed of

Suresh Raj And ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

2016-01-25Mr. Justice Harbans Singh Rai2 pages

C.R. No.8066 of 2015 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8066 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision.25.01.2016 Suresh Raj and others .......Petitioners Vs.

State of Haryana and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

The civil revision petition is filed against the order dismissing the application seeking for enhancement of compensation for item of property which has been omitted to be made reference of by the Collector. The application was not competent in the manner in which it was done. The counsel refers to me to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Vs. Union of India 1991(2) SCC 247 where the Supreme Court made possible such reference. I have gone through the judgment. The Court was considering the case of an application filed by a party before the Court under Section 151 and 152 CPC where there was a prayer that in the interest of justice, Collector should be directed to file revised statement under Section 19 of the Act giving details of whole of the land belonging to the plaintiff which had been left on account of accidental slip or omissions. This is exactly the nature of prayer that should have been made before the Court.

PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.01.29 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.8066 of 2015 (O&M) -22.

The order is maintained but the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition before the Court in a competent manner in the way it has been directed in the judgment of the Supreme Court. If such application is filed, dismissal of the application already done by the Court will not stand in the way and the Court will consider the same afresh and make an appropriate direction in the manner it has been referred to in the above judgment and consider the issue of enhancement of compensation.

3.

The revision petition is disposed of with the above observations.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 25, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.01.29 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document