HC raps city lawyer in property dispute case

As per the order,the lawyer “admittedly” has possession over 36 karams (180 feet) on the road,even as his entitlement as per the mode of partition is of 20 karama (100 feet) on the road.

A number of opportunities were offered to the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement. “The proposals and the counter proposal made during the process of negotiations were not acceptable to the rival party. Our effort also proved futile,”,the court remarked in its three-page order.

Jarnail Singh,one of the opposite parties,told the court that his share in the land was 3 kanals 12 marlas and that his entitlement on the road was of 4.7 karama and that he was not in possession of any land. “It is,therefore,apparent that the practicing advocate is in possession of 4.7 karams on the road which falls in the share of Jarnail Singh,” the order reads.

The division bench has directed the advocate to surrender the land in dispute to its rightful owner. In case,the court ruled,the advocate created any hindrance in handing over the possession Jarnail Singh would seek police assistance to be provided by the SSP.

During the course of the hearing,it was brought to the notice of the court that the advocate had constructed a marriage palace on the land in his possession. “In case the marriage palace has to be demolished to hand over the possession to — who has been deprived of possession of the land till date — his share in the same shall be got demolished by the SSP,in case the advocate does not voluntarily hand over possession of 4.7 karams of land on the road to (Jarnail Singh).

Needless to mention that demolition shall be the last resort ie only if (advocate) does not surrender 4.7 karam of land falling on the road,out of the excess in his possession,” the court ordered.