Court: Supreme Court of India
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 2009
Citation: Market Committee, Hodal v. Sukhdevi, (2016) 1 SCC 290
Date of Judgement: October 15, 2015
Appellant: Market Committee, Hodal Through its Secretary
Respondents: Sukhdevi and Others
Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Honourable Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Advocates of Appellants: Nidhi Gupta, AAG, Rachna Gandhi and Dr. Monika Gusain
Advocates of Respondents: Manoj Joshi and Lalita Kaushik
Statutes:
- Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sections 5 & 6
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 16, 4 & 6
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Cases Referred: Market Committee, Hodal v. Sukhdev, RSA No. 4126 of 2002, decided on 20-2-2006 (P&H)
Present status: Appeal disposed and Suit Dismissed
Issue:
- With respect to the possession of Kill Nos.13/4 and 14/1 of Rectangle No.226 situated at Patti Tihav, Hodal
Facts:
- A Suit had been filed by the Respondents (Sukhdevi and Others) for possession against the present Appellant (Market Committee, Hodal), however the suit had been decreed and the Appeal was dismissed (Market Committee, Hodal v. Sukh Devi, RSA No. 4126 of 2002, decided on 20-2-2006).
- Following the circumstances the present appeal was filed by the Appellant.
Contentions by Appellant:
- The counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the land in question has already been acquired under notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Moreover, the possession of the land in question had already been taken on 20-4-1981 and compensation in respect of the land in question had already been paid to the Respondents.
- The relevant notifications under Sections 4 and 6 have been placed on record.
Obiter Dicta:
The Suit for possession could not have been decreed, especially when the land had already been acquired.
Judgement:
- The appeal is disposed.
- The impugned judgement (Market Committee, Hodal v. Sukh Devi, RSA No. 4126 of 2002, decided on 20-2-2006) is set aside and suit is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Conclusion:
The Appellant in the present Case appealed to review the decree provided by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in its Judgement of 20-2-2006, on the grounds that the land in concern was already in possession in 20-4-1981 and the compensation with respect to the same was also provided to Sukhdevi (Respondent).
Following the contentions, the Apex Court held that the decree provided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana shouldn’t have been given. Hence the Supreme Court set aside the Judgement of 2006 and the suit was dismissed.
Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider
Published On: February 12, 2022 at 22:45 IST