The Market Committee Hodal Through its Secretary Vs. Smt. Sukhdevi and Ors. .
EmailAppeal: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6000 OF 2009
Petitioner: The Market Committee Hodal Through its Secretary
Respondent: Smt. Sukhdevi and Ors. .
Judges: ANIL R. DAVE , ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Date of Judgment: Oct 15, 2015
JUDGEMENT:
Non-Reportable CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6000 OF 2009
The Market Committee Hodal Through its Secretary … APPELLANT(S)
VS.
Smt. Sukhdevi & Ors. … RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A short question involved in this appeal is with regard to the possession of Kill Nos.13/4 and 14/1 of Rectangle No.226 situated at Patti Tihav, Hodal. 3. A suit had been filed by the respondents for possession against the present appellant. The suit had been decreed and even the appeal filed has been dismissed. In these circumstances, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the land in question has already been acquired under Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Moreover, the possession of the land in question had already been taken on 20th April, 1981 and compensation in respect of land in question had already been paid to the respondents. Relevant Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 have been placed on record. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion the suit for possession could not have been decreed, espectially when the land had already been acquired. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the appeal is disposed of as allowed. The impugned judgement is set aside and suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
……………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
………………J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 15th October, 2015.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6000 OF 2009
The Market Committee Hodal Through its Secretary … APPELLANT(S)
VS.
Smt. Sukhdevi & Ors. … RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A short question involved in this appeal is with regard to the possession of Kill Nos.13/4 and 14/1 of Rectangle No.226 situated at Patti Tihav, Hodal. 3. A suit had been filed by the respondents for possession against the present appellant. The suit had been decreed and even the appeal filed has been dismissed. In these circumstances, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the land in question has already been acquired under Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Moreover, the possession of the land in question had already been taken on 20th April, 1981 and compensation in respect of land in question had already been paid to the respondents. Relevant Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 have been placed on record. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion the suit for possession could not have been decreed, espectially when the land had already been acquired. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the appeal is disposed of as allowed. The impugned judgement is set aside and suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
……………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
………………J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 15th October, 2015.
