Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 19.03.2026 vs Parkash Chand & Others on 9 April, 2026
2026:HHC:11499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Revision No.72 of 2025
Reserved on: 19.03.2026
.
Decided on: 09.04.2026
Rajeev Bansal ....Petitioner
Versus
Parkash Chand & others ...Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate
rt with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, for
respondent No.1
Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional
Advocate General, for respondents No.2
and 3.
Romesh Verma, Judge
The present petition arises out of the order, as
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, District
Sirmaur, H.P., dated 07.07.2025, whereby the application filed by
the present petitioner under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code to
issue direction to judgment debtor to release 50% of
compensation of land belonging to Smt. Indrawati, has been
dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner
Rajeev Bansal filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief
of permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Sub
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
2
Judge, Nahan. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree
dated 14.06.1999 dismissed the suit as preferred by the present
.
petitioner. As per averments as made in the plaint, it was alleged
that one Shri Kaka Ram, son of Roada Mal was the owner of the
land in village Joharon, Tehsil Nahan. He had three sons, namely,
S/Shri Shanti Sarup, Ram Sarup and Gopal Dass. Shri Ram
of
Sarup died on 14th Chait 1998, (1941 AD) during the lifetime of
his father Kaka Ram and was survived by his wife Indrawati and
rt
his son Naresh Kumar. Shri Naresh Kumar also died during the
life time of Kaka Ram.
3. It was stated in the plaint that, after the demise of
Kaka Ram, his sons Shanti Sarup and Gopal Dass entered into a
family settlement on 25.04.2001, whereby 1/3rd share in the total
land situated in village Joharon was kept apart as maintenance to
Smt. Indrawati, wife of Ram Sarup and Smt.Surgi Devi,
grandmother of the parties, but the same was relinquished in
favour of Shanti Sarup, in lieu of providing maintenance to both
Smt. Sugri Devi and Smt. Indrawati, whereas the remaining 2/3rd
share in the land was divided and partitioned between Shanti
Sarup and Gopal Dass in equal shares. It was further averred
that after the separation of 1/3rd share of Gopal Dass, the
remaining land measuring 155-02 bighas in village Joharon came
into possession of Shanti Sarup as owner in the said family
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
3
settlement. Thus, he claimed his exclusive ownership in the suit
land. In the alternative, Shanti Sarup also claimed to have
.
become owner qua the alleged share of Indrawati by virtue of
adverse possession. The suit land is shown to be owned and
possessed by Shanti Sarup and Indrawati, widow of Ram Sarup,
in equal share. However, said Indrawati left the house and
of
remarried to one Shri Balkrishan Goyal of Delhi in 1948 AD.
Therefore, under the old Hindu Law prevalent, at that time, she
rt
forfeited her right to maintenance, also, and the suit land reverted
back to Shanti Sarup, brother of Ram Sarup. It was averred that
upon the remarriage of Indrawati to Balkrishan Goyal, her share
was reverted back to Shanti Sarup only and therefore, he became
the full owner of the suit land. Indrawati was not competent to
execute the Will qua her share in the suit land in favour of
Parkash Chand on 21/22.08.1984, nor he was entitled to get the
mutation of her share in the suit land.
4. After the dismissal of the suit on 14.06.1999, the
present petitioner Rajeev Bansal preferred an appeal in the Court
of learned District Judge, Sirmaur on 20.07.1999. The learned
District Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 05.09.2000
accepted the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by
learned trial Court was set aside and the suit of the present
petitioner for declaration that he is the exclusive owner-in-
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
4
possession of the suit land was decreed. As a consequential
relief, defendant No.1/present respondent Parkash Chand was
.
restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff/present
petitioner over the suit land.
5. Against the judgment and decree as passed by
learned District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, dated 05.09.2000,
of
the present respondent, Parkash Chand, along with Brij Bhushan
and Pushpa Devi, preferred a regular second appeal in this Court.
rt
The appeal came up for consideration on 26.10.2006, and by the
said order, the appeal was disposed of as having been
compromised between the parties in the following manner:
“This appeal coming up for final hearing on 26 th day
of October, 2006, before a single bench consisting of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge, High Court ofHimachal Pradesh Shimla, in the presence of Mr.
Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate counsel for theappellants, Mr. Ankush Sood, Advocate, counsel for
respondent No.1 and Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocatecounsel for respondents No.3 to 6; it is ordered in
terms of the compromise Ex. CA and site plan
(Annexure A-1) to Ex. CA, the decree passed by the
first appellate Court is superseded and the following
ultra is passed.
1. Appellants-defendants Parkash Bansal, Brij
Bhushan and Pushpa Devi are declared to be owners
in possession of 6 Bighas land forming part of Khasra
No.17, as depicted by Khasra No.17/1 in Annexure A-1
to compromise deed Ex. CA, situate in Moza Joharon,::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
5Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. The possession of
this 6 bighas and is admitted by the respondents to
have been delivered to the appellants.
.
2. For approaching the aforesaid 6 bighas land
depicted by Khasra No.17/1 from Tarlokpur-Kala Amb
road, a passage has been provided by therespondents(plaintiff and proforma defendants) from
the land owned and possessed by them and the said
passage is depicted by Khasra Nos.204/135/2/2,of
205/135/1/1, 205/135/2/1, 204/135/2/2 and
205/135/2/3 situate in Moza Joharon, Tehsil Nahan,
District Sirmour, H.P. and this passage will be
rt
available for use not only to the defendants-appellants
above named, but also to the respondents.
3. The un-disbursed amount of compensation awarded
on account of acquisition of land bearing Khasra
No.134/18, 146/30/2 and 150/31 situate in MozaJoharon and any further increase in the amount of
compensation by this Court in the appeal filed in this
Court for enhancement of such compensation, shall beshared by the parties in the following manner:-
(a) Appellants-defendants shall get 50% of the amount
now lying in deposit as also the amount by which the
compensation may be enhanced by this Court.
(b) The remaining 50% of the amount referred to in
clause (a) above shall be shared equally by
respondent No.1 Rajeev Bansal, respondent No.2
Surinder Nath and the legal heirs of late Sh. Mohinder
Kumar Bansal, who are respondents No.3 to 7 in the
appeal.
The amount of compensation already
withdrawn/disbursed to the appellants shall remain
with them and the respondents will not law any claim
to the same.
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
6
4. The partition of Shamlat land, situate in Moza
Joharon regarding which mutation No.293 has been
sanctioned shall remain intact and binding up on the
.
parties.
5. The parties are declared to be exclusive owners in
possession of the following properties in terms of the
compromise:-
Sr. Name of owners Khasra Nos. Area in
No. bighas
of
1. Sh. Parkash Chand, 17/1 6-0
Sh. Brij Bhushan and
Smt. Pushpa Devi
(appellants-defendants No.1 to 3)
2. Sh. Rajiv Bansal 205/135/2/4 to 7 19-8
rt
respondent/plaintiff No.1 205/135/1/2
17/2
204/135/2/1
204/135/2/3
1-18
6-18
0-04
2-02
-------
30-10
3. Santosh Bansal, 204/135/1 1-0
Dharminder Bansal, 204/135/1,2 & 3 5-11
Monika Bansal, ------
Sanjay Bansal, 6-11
respondent No.3 to 6
Smt. Savitri Devi respondent No.7
4. Area shall remain in 205/135/1/1 1-0
the name of defendants No.3 to 7. 5-11
------
6-11
5. Rajeev Bansal 204/135/2/2 0-4
205/135/2/1 0-5
205/135/2/2 1-4
205/135/2/3 0-1
--------
1-14
Note:- The aforesaid min Khasra numbers are
depicted in Annexure A-1
6. Compromise decree passed in RSA No.40 of 1991,
decided on 03.07.1991 inter-se respondents No.1 to 8
shall be binding on all of them including respondent
No.8.
7. The parties shall now withdraw all the pending
matter, if any, in different courts, with respect to the
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
7
property of Smt. Indirawati widow of Sh. Ram
Sawroop.
8. The compromise deed aforesaid Ex. CA and
.
Annexure A-1 thereto shall form part of this decree
(photo copy of Ex. CA and Annexure A-1 are enclosed
herewith). This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this 26
th day of November, 2006.
of
Superintendent (Judicial) Deputy Registrar (Judicial).”
6. Pursuant to the determination of the rights by this
rt
Court, especially with respect to un-disbursed amount of
compensation which was to be disbursed amongst the parties, it
was specifically held that in view of the compromise entered into
between the parties on the basis of their statements that the
present respondent/defendant shall get 50% of the amount now
lying in deposit as also the amount by which the compensation
may be enhanced by this Court. It was further ordered in para-3
that remaining 50% of the amount shall be shared equally by
present petitioner Rajeev Bansal, Surinder Nath and the legal
heirs of late Sh. Mohinder Kumar Bansal, who were respondents
No.3 to 7 in the appeal. After the passing of compromise decree,
this Court enhanced amount of compensation of present
respondent to Rs.54,06,894/- in RFA No.15 of 1995 and
Rs.36,04,597 to Rajeev Bansal in RFA No.15 of 1995 and
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
8
compensation amount of Santosh Bansal wife of late Mohinder
Kumar Bansal was decided in RFA No.24 of 1995 amounting to
.
Rs.18,02,298/- vide its order dated 25.04.2007. After the payment
of compensation amount, the present respondents/decree holder
preferred SLP(C) bearing No.24767/2009 before the Hon’ble
Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court ordered to reduce the
of
developmental changes from 40% to 30% which ultimately led to
enhancement of compensation amount. After the passing of the
rt
judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the payment of
Rs.16,00,999.75 to the present respondent and Rs.10,67,330/- to
Rajeev Bansal was paid. As a matter of fact, the petitioner did not
approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order dated
25.04.2007 passed in RFA No.24 of 1995.
7. Three separate execution petitions were filed by the
respective parties, including the present respondent, for payment
of amount of compensation. All the execution petitions were
allowed by passing separate orders vide order dated 26.07.2022.
It is admitted by the respective parties that no objection of any
kind was filed by any of the parties during the pendency of the
execution petition filed by present petitioner. Learned executing
Court vide its order dated 26.07.2022, passed the order whereby
the petition as filed by the present respondent was allowed and
the respondents/judgment debtors i.e. Land Acquisition Collector
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
9
and State of Himachal Pradesh were directed to pay the
remaining amount of compensation to the decree holder in terms
.
of the calculations. The said order has been placed on record as
Annexure P-4. Further, the said order has been modified vide
order dated 30.11.2022. Against the order as passed by the
learned Execution Court dated 26.07.2022, the present petitioner
of
preferred CMPMO No.212 of 2023 before this Court. This Court
vide its order dated 14.05.2024 dismissed the said petition by
rt
passing the following order:-
“12. As I have already mentioned hereinabove in
civil litigation between the parties ended in a comprise
decree before this Court in RSA No.35 of 2001. The
contents of this compromise decree have already beenquoted by me in extensio hereinabove. Para-3 of the
compromise decree mentioned that the undisbursedamount of compensation awarded on account of
acquisition of land bearing Khasra Nos. 134/18,146/30/2 and 150/31, measuring 70-01 bighas,
situated at Mouza Johoran, Tehsil Nahan, DistrictSirmaur, H.P., and any further increase in the amount
of compensation by the High Court shall be shared by
the parties in following terms:-
“Appellant/defendant shall get 50% of the amount
lying in by which the compensation may be enhanced
and remaining 50% of the amount shall be shared
equally by respondent No.1 Rajeev Bansal,
respondent No.2 Surinder Nath and legal heirs of
Mohinder Kumar Bansal.”
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
10
13. Now, the appellants before this Court were
Prakash Chand, Brij Bhushan and Pushpa Devi. Brij
Bhushan and Pushpa Devi are not before this Court.
.
The petitioners herein are Rajeev Bansal and Surinder
Nath. In terms of the compromise decree, appellants
were entitled to 50% of the amount and not 50% of the
50% as has been argued by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner.
14. In fact, the terms of the compromise are very
of
clear that the appellants in the RSA were to get 50% of
the compensation awarded on account of the
rt acquisition of the said land and the remaining 50%
was to go to the present petitioners etc.
15. It is not the case of the petitioners that
Prakash Chand has got in excess of 50% of the
amount of compensation on account of the acquisition
of the said land. That being the case, this Court
concurs with the submissions made by learned
counsel for the respondent that this petition is without
any merit. The compromise decree has to be read as it
is and the parties cannot be permitted to agitate the
order passed by the learned Executing Court on the
basis of material, which is contrary to the final
compromise entered into between the parties and that
too before the High Court. Therefore, as the orders
passed by the Executing Court could not be proved to
be contrary to the compromise decree passed by the
Court on the basis of compromise, the petitioners are
not entitled for any relief and the petition is dismissed.”
8. Still feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner
preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) bearing No.13255 of 2024
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
11
and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 28.06.2024
disposed of the said appeal in the following manner:
.
“We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioners at length.
We dispose of this special leave petition by
observing that the share of the parties herein vis-a-vis
the land acquisition compensation ought to be
apportioned in terms of the compromise decree arrivedof
at between the parties dated 26.10.2006, which was
with regard to the division of the property vis-a-vis thert share of Indrawati arrived at between the parties.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.”
9. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application
before the learned trial Court under the provisions of Section 47
of CPC, when the respondent sought release of compensation
amount with a prayer that order dated 26.07.2022 and
subsequent calculation sheet dated 30.11.2022 be stayed. The
petitioner further prayed that a direction be issued to the
judgment debtor to provide 50% of compensation amount to the
decree holder, Parkash Chand, out of the amount of
compensation for 35.01 bighas of land belonging to
Smt.Indrawati, and 2/3rd of the remaining 50% of compensation to
the objector in equal share, as per compromise deed dated
26.10.2006 after rectifying the error in calculation of the amount of
compensation due to the decree holder and the objector
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
12
individually. The said application was duly replied by the judgment
debtor. Learned Additional Judge, Nahan vide its order dated
.
07.07.2025 dismissed the application filed under Section 47 of
CPC as being not maintainable.
10. Feeling dissatisfied against the impugned order
dated 07.07.2025, the objector/petitioner has approached this
of
Court.
11. It is contended by Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Senior
rt
Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, that the
present respondent/decree holder is entitled to 50% of
compensation amount out of amount of compensation for 35.01
bighas i.e 17.5 bighas of the land and that 2/3rd of the remaining
50% of the compensation shall be paid to the objector in equal
share as per compromise dated 26.10.2006.
12. Before delving into merits of the case, it is apposite to
explain the nature and scope conferred to this Court under
Section 115 of the CPC and analyze whether this Court is
empowered to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner in the
instant case. The said provision reads as under:
“Section 115. Revision-
[(1)] The High Court may call for the record of any case
which has been decided by any Court subordinate to
such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto,
and if such subordinate court appears–
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
13
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by
law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested,
.
or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court
may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
[Provided that the High Court shall not, under this
section, vary or reverse any order made, or any orderof
deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other
proceeding, except where the order, if it had beenrtmade in favour of the party applying for revision, would
have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.]
[(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, varyor reverse any decree or order against which an
appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court
subordinate thereto.] [(3) A revision shall not operateas a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court
except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed
by the High Court.] [Explanation.–In this section, theexpression “any case which has been decided”
includes any order made, or any order deciding an
issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.]”
13. On bare perusal of the above provision, it is clear
that the High Court can only interfere with the orders of the
Subordinate Court if the court has committed illegality or material
irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. It is imperative to note
that under the revisional powers, this Court cannot attack the
findings on the facts by the Subordinate Court and can only
interfere if any infirmities are found with the exercise of jurisdiction
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
14
of the Court and not when the courts erroneously decide the
cases.
.
14. The primary object of the revision powers conferred
to the High Courts is to prevent subordinate courts from acting
arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally while they exercise their
jurisdiction. The aspect related to the revision powers given to the
of
High Court has been extensively dealt with by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, whereby the Hon’ble
rt
Court discussed the meaning and scope of the said provision.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s D.L.F. Housing
and Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup
Singh and others, 1969(3) SCC 807, has considered the
provisions of Section 115 of CPC as follows:
“5. The position thus seems to be firmly established
that while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 115, it is notcompetent to the High Court to correct errors of fact
however gross or even errors of law unless the saiderrors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to
try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section
on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the
present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was
not possible to contend, that the learned Additional
District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a
jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that
the proceedings under reference be stayed till the
decision of the appeal by the High Court in the::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
15proceedings for specific performance of the agreement
in question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to
the case in hand. The words “illegally” and “with.
material irregularity” as used in this Clause do not
cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to
the decision arrived at but merely to the manner inwhich it is reached. The errors contemplated by this
Clause may, in our view, relate either to breach of
some provision of law or to material defects ofof
procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to
errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribedrt formalities have been complied with. The High Court
does not seem to have adverted to the limitation
imposed on its power u/s 115 of the Code. Merelybecause the High Court would have felt inclined, had it
dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different
conclusion on the question of continuing stay of thereference proceedings pending decision of the appeal,
could hardly justify interference on revision u/s 115 of
the Code when there was no illegality or materialirregularity committed by the learned Additional District
Judge in his manner of dealing with this question. Itseems to us that in this matter the High Court treated
the revision virtually as if it was an appeal.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5622
of 2025, titled as P. Kumarakurubaran vs, P. Narayanan &
others, held as under:-
14. It is also to be noted that the appellant has
categorically averred in the plaint that he executed the
registered power of attorney in favour of his father
solely for the limited purpose of constructing a house::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
16and carrying out related activities. There is no express
clause authorizing his father to sell the suit property to
any person without the appellant’s consent and.
knowledge. Yet, the appellant’s father executed a sale
deed in favour of his granddaughter, going beyond the
scope of the power of attorney, which raises serious
doubt about misuse of authority and potential fraud.
Such assertions cannot be rejected in the application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, we are of
of
the view that the plaint discloses a cause of action
which cannot be shut out at the threshold. Thus, the
rttrial Court acted within its jurisdiction in refusing to
reject the plaint and in holding that the matter ought to
proceed to trial. The High Court, while exercising its
revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, ought
not to have interfered in the absence of any
jurisdictional error or perversity in the trial court’s order.
Rejecting the plaint where substantial factual disputes
exist concerning limitation and the scope of authority
under the Power of Attorney, is legally unsustainable.”
17. In Ajit Singh & others vs. Krishan Kumar, decided
on 18th October, 2023, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, held as
under:
“11. The same view is reiterated in a later decision
of this Court in the case of Managing Director (Mig)
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway
[(1972) 3 SCC 195] wherein a three-Judge Bench of
this Court speaking through Hegde, J. clearly stated
that the High Court under Section 115 CPC had no
jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first
appellate court based on facts or even involving any::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
17error of law. It was next observed that it was not the
conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate
court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it.
made. The order of the first appellate court may be
right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may
not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear,that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It was not the
case that the first appellate court exercised its
jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity.
of
That being so, the High Court could not have invoked
its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedurert Code.”
18. The precise case of the objector is that the present
respondent is entitled to 50% of 50% of the total land comprised
in Khasra No.134/18, 146/30/2 and 150/31, measuring 70.1
bighas situated at mauza Joharon, Tehsil Nahan, District
Sirmaur, H.P.
19. Now coming to the factual matrix of the case. It is the
case of the objector/petitioner that the total land acquired was
about 70 bighas. Therefore, the present respondent was not
entitled to compensation for 35 bighas of land, but is entitled for
compensation of 50% of 50% of the land which is 17.5 bighas of
the land. The contentions and submissions as being raised by the
objector/petitioner, in the humble view of this Court are contrary to
the mandate passed by this Court on 26.10.2006. The admitted
fact is that the un-disbursed amount of compensation awarded on
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
18
account of acquisition of land bearing Khasra Nos.134/18,
146/30/2 and 150/31, situated at mauza Joharon, Tehsil Nahan,
.
District Sirmaur, H.P. and any further increase in amount of
compensation was to be shared by the parties. It was agreed
upon in the compromise that Parkash Chand, Brij Bhushan and
Pushpa Devi shall be entitled to get 50% of the amount lying
of
deposited in the Court as well as any amount which may be
enhanced by the Court. To the similar extent, remaining 50% of
rt
the amount was to be shared equally by the petitioner Rajeev
Bansal, respondent No.2 Surinder Nath and the legal heirs of late
Mohinder Kumar Bansal, who were respondents No.3 to 7 in the
RSA.
20. The compromise decree is very clear, specific and
unambiguous and there is no confusion of any kind regarding the
same. By means of objections, which the present petitioner has
raised, it will virtually amount to rewriting of the compromise
decree, which has been passed by this Court. Admittedly, the
compromise decree has not been challenged by either of the
parties in any manner. Therefore, the order as passed by this
Court on 26.10.2006 is final and binding on all. The present
petitioner was a signatory to the said compromise and the same
was executed in his presence. Now, by raising the plea that
Parkash Chand, the present respondent, is entitled to get only
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
19
50% of 50% of the total land measuring 70.01 bighas, which
comes to approximately to 17.5 bighas, is erroneous and
.
unsustainable.
21. The record reveals that earlier also similar objections
had been raised by the present petitioner and those objections
were rejected by this Court while deciding CMPMO No.212 of
of
2023 dated 14.05.2024. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its
order dated 28.06.2024, has ordered that the apportionment has
rt
to be made in terms of the compromise decree as arrived at
between the parties on 26.10.2006. Therefore, the contentions
being raised by the present petitioner appears to prolong the
matter so that the decree holder may not receive the share, which
he is entitled to from the total amount of compensation. The
petitioner is trying to rewrite the compromise decree, which was
entered into between the parties in their presence and was duly
signed by them. The interpretation which is tried to be given by
the petitioner that the present respondent is only entitled for 50%
of the 50% of the total land, which comes to approximately 17.5
bighas and not 35 bighas is unsustainable and beyond the record,
as well as the compromise decree passed by this Court.
22. The petitioner could not point out any error in the
impugned order as passed by the learned Additional District
Judge dated 07.07.2025, whereby the application filed under
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
20
Section 47 of CPC was ordered to be dismissed as not
maintainable. Learned Additional District Judge, after examining
.
each and every aspect of the matter, has rightly dealt with the
controversy and rejected the application. The objections which
have been filed/preferred by the present petitioner are neither
sustainable nor legally valid. Therefore, the same have rightly
of
been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Nahan.
The petitioner is trying to take advantage of the judgment and
rt
decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Nahan dated
05.09.2000, which stands superseded by the compromise decree
as passed by this Court on 26.10.2006. The compromise decree
has crystallized the rights of the parties. Therefore, the objections,
which are contrary to the record, cannot be allowed to be
sustained and the learned Court below has rightly rejected the
same. There is no illegality or material irregularity committed by
the learned Court below
23. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of
any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly
dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.
( Romesh Verma )
Judge
April, 2026
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
21
(vt)
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:38:29 :::CIS
