← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/9518/2015dismissed

Manjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Punjab And ORS

2015-09-10Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

VINOD KUMAR 2015.09.11 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9518 of 2015 [ 1 ] ****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.9518 of 2015 Date of decision:10.09.2015 Manjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Financial Comissioner, Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) The petitioner is claiming himself to be in possession of the property in dispute, which has been allegedly purchased by the private respondents from one Ram Chand. The dispute arose when the private respondents asked for sanctioning of mutation in their favour on the basis of sale deed. The petitioner has been claiming that the property in dispute is in his possession by virtue of an oral sale having been effected in favour of his ancestors, therefore, the mutation in favour of the private respondents on the basis of the sale deed by the said Ram Chand is illegal. The petitioner has failed before all the revenue authorities and has now come to this Court. On 27.07.2015, this Court directed the Collector, Ludhiana to conduct an inquiry in regard to possession of the

VINOD KUMAR 2015.09.11 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9518 of 2015 [ 2 ] **** petitioner on the land in question and asked him to submit the report. Today, an affidavit of the Collector, Ludhiana, along with the report dated 18.08.2015, has been placed on record. As per the said report, the petitioner has not been found to be in possession of the land in question, rather the possession is with the members of the family of deceased Nachhttar Singh S/o Tarlok Singh.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said report is one sided and without reference to the revenue record. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition at this stage because he had already filed a suit for declaration, challenging the alleged sale deed by Ram Chand in favour of the private respondents and the said suit is at the final stage. In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. September 10, 2015 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge