High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 11 SHI CK 0251

Mansa Devi and Others vs Suresh Chand

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 9 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surjit Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Review No. 102 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 352 words

Surjit Singh, J.

CMP(M) No. 848/2010

1.

Heard. Delay Condoned. Application stands disposed of.

Civil Review No. 102/2010

2.

Heard and gone through the record.

3.

By means of present petition, u/s 114 read with Order 47, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, review of judgment dated 23.2.2010 of this Court, passed in RSA No. 39/2000, has been sought.

4.

It is alleged that this Court, while deciding the case, did not go through compromise deed Ext. PW7/A, in its entirety, and that had it done so, findings of the two Courts below to the effect that there is no passage over Khasra No. 545/1, would not have been reversed and appeal not accepted.

5.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

6.

Submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that compromise deed Ext. PW7/A had not been read as a whole, while delivering the judgment, is not correct. In compromise deed Ext. PW7/A, it has been conceded by the present petitioner, who was respondent in the main appeal, that there was a passage which had been got cleared by the Naib Tehsildar on the spot, running through the government land. Report of Naib Tehsildar is Ext. PW6/A. Tatima attached with this report is Ext. PW6/B. Both, in the report and the Tatima, it is mentioned that there used to be a passage through Khasra No. 545/1 and that because of this reason, while allotting government land to the present petitioner, under Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act and the Scheme formulated thereunder, portion of Khasra No. 545, depicted by number 545/1, had not been allotted to him, but had been retained by the government. Thus, the passage is not through the land that was allotted to the petitioner, i.e. land bearing Khasra No. 545/2, but through Khasra No. 545/1, which as per report Ext. PW6/A, had not been allotted to the petitioner and this fact is conceded by the petitioner in compromise Ext. PW7/A, though in a different tenor.

7.

For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed.Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.