CR-7246- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 107-2. GURDEV SINGH GURJIT SINGH & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. an application filed by the plaintiff permission to withdraw the suit has approached this Court 2. filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are suit land and defendants the revenue record have no right -2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURDEV SINGH VS. GURJIT SINGH & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. G.S. Punia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents No.4 & Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.20-GLADA **** SEHGAL, J. Aggrieved of order dated 27 an application filed by the plaintiffs under permission to withdraw the suit has been declined, petitioner pproached this Court by way of instant Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that plaintiffs a suit for declaration to the effect that they are land and defendants, whose names appear in the column of ownership in the revenue record have no right, title or interest in the property. It has been IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7246-2018 Date of decision:19.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. G.S. Punia, Sr. Advocate with 16 to 18. Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate GLADA. ggrieved of order dated 27.09.2018, Annexure P-1, whereby under Order 23, Rule 1, 3 (a) CPC, has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff No.4 instant revision petition. senior counsel for the petitioner states that plaintiffs a suit for declaration to the effect that they are absolute owners of whose names appear in the column of ownership in title or interest in the property. It has been .2025 whereby for /plaintiff No.4 senior counsel for the petitioner states that plaintiffs owners of the whose names appear in the column of ownership in title or interest in the property. It has been Sheetal 2025.04.02 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-7246- asserted that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the respondent from alienating any portion of the suit property being contested and written statement has been filed respondents filed by defendants No.5 out that a preliminary objection is barred short “1894 Act”) is to be determined under was not maintainable Rule 3-A permission to file illegally rejected by the impugned order. as a fresh suit is not granted to the plaintiffs to avail the remedy available to them in accordance with law. 3. have any objection respondents are unrepresented 4. respective submissions assistance. -2018 -2- that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the respondent No.19 for the acquired land and for restr from alienating any portion of the suit property being contested and written statement has been filed respondents. In particular, by making a filed by defendants No.5 and 6 as well as defendant No.20, that a preliminary objection was raised that jurisdiction of the civil court in view of the provisions of the short “1894 Act”) and that any dispute regarding dis is to be determined under Section 30, ibid maintainable, an application under was filed on behalf of the plaintiff permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action illegally rejected by the impugned order. fresh suit is not maintainable in view of the bar, permission will be anted to the plaintiffs to avail the remedy available to them in accordance with law. Counsel for respondent No.20 have any objection, in case, the prayer is respondents are unrepresented, despite service I have heard counsel for the parties and considered the respective submissions besides examining the assistance. that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the awarded amount from 19 for the acquired land and for restraining the respondents from alienating any portion of the suit property. He submits that the suit is being contested and written statement has been filed by some of the reference to the written statement 6 as well as defendant No.20, counsel points raised that jurisdiction of the civil court n view of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for and that any dispute regarding disbursal of compensation , ibid. He asserts that as the civil suit an application under Order 23, Rule 1 and 2 read with behalf of the plaintiffs for withdrawal of the suit with on the same cause of action, but it has been illegally rejected by the impugned order. Learned senior counsel states that maintainable in view of the bar, permission will be anted to the plaintiffs to avail the remedy available to them in accordance 20-GLADA states that he does not ayer is accepted. Remaining/contesting service. eard counsel for the parties and considered the besides examining the paper-book with their able from aining the respondents that the suit is of the reference to the written statement counsel points raised that jurisdiction of the civil court (for of compensation civil suit read with for withdrawal of the suit with , but it has been senior counsel states that maintainable in view of the bar, permission will be anted to the plaintiffs to avail the remedy available to them in accordance that he does not contesting eard counsel for the parties and considered their book with their able Sheetal 2025.04.02 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-7246- 5. by Bachan Gurmukh Singh and the land was acquired by for a public purpose the Land land was to be disbursed to the plaintiff objection and entitled to the award being served, suit has been contested by the defendant They have raised been acquired under the of compensation suit was not maintainable, withdrawal withdraw the suit but stand taken before this Court is liberty be accordance 6. of filing a regarding the compensation amount or its dis to be decided as per the provisions of the said request made by counsel for the petitioner deserves to -2018 -3- Pleaded case of the plaintiffs Bachan Singh and Teja Singh, predecessor of the plaintiffs Gurmukh Singh and the land was acquired by public purpose viz construction of a road. and Acquisition Collector and when the compensation for the acquired land was to be disbursed to the plaintiffs objection and even filed a civil suit, which is pending entitled to the awarded amount, plaintiffs being served, suit has been contested by the defendant They have raised an objection that suit is not maintainable as the land has been acquired under the 1894 Act and any dispute regarding apportionment of compensation has to be settled under suit was not maintainable, application was filed by the plaintiffs withdrawal. Although, it was prayed that the plaintiff withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh stand taken before this Court is that as be granted to avail the remedy accordance with law. It cannot be disputed that the plaintiff a civil suit. 1894 Act is a complete code regarding the compensation amount or its dis to be decided as per the provisions of the said request made by counsel for the petitioner deserves to s is that the suit land was purchased Singh, predecessor of the plaintiffs, from Gurmukh Singh and the land was acquired by GLADA – respondent No. a road. An award has been passed by and when the compensation for the acquired land was to be disbursed to the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 18 raised an which is pending. Claiming that they are filed the suit, Annexure P-2. Upon being served, suit has been contested by the defendants on various counts. an objection that suit is not maintainable as the land has and any dispute regarding apportionment s to be settled under Section 30 of the said Act. As the was filed by the plaintiffs for its it was prayed that the plaintiffs be permitted to fresh one on the same cause of action, that as the civil suit is not maintainable, the remedy available to the plaintiffs in t cannot be disputed that the plaintiffs do not have the remedy is a complete code in itself and any dispute regarding the compensation amount or its disbursal and apportionment has to be decided as per the provisions of the said Act. In this background, the request made by counsel for the petitioner deserves to be acceded to. is that the suit land was purchased from No.20 n award has been passed by and when the compensation for the acquired defendants No.1 to 18 raised an they are pon on various counts. an objection that suit is not maintainable as the land has and any dispute regarding apportionment ct. As the or its permitted to on the same cause of action, civil suit is not maintainable, available to the plaintiffs in do not have the remedy itself and any dispute rsal and apportionment has ct. In this background, the Sheetal 2025.04.02 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-7246- 7. impugned plaintiffs is accepted liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to them in accordance with law. 19.03.2025 sheetal -2018 -4- For the aforegoing reasons, impugned order, Annexure P-1, is set aside plaintiffs is accepted. Plaintiffs are permi liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to them in accordance with .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No foregoing reasons, revision petition is allowed and is set aside. Application filed by the laintiffs are permitted to withdraw the civil suit with liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to them in accordance with (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No and pplication filed by the draw the civil suit with liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to them in accordance with Sheetal 2025.04.02 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh