Punjab-Haryana High Court

Aviraj Singh (Minor) Through His Mother ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 April, 2025

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Vikas Suri

                            Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047152-DB

CWP-3632-2023 (O & M)                                     -1-




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH.


                                        CWP-3632-2023 (O & M)
                                        Reserved on: 27.02.2025
                                        Pronounced on: 01.04.2025



AVIRAJ SINGH (MINOR) THROUGH HIS MOTHER
CHIRANTANA KUMARI                                            .....Petitioner


                                Versus



STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                               .....Respondents


CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI


Argued by: Mr. M.S.Khaira, Senior Advocate with
           Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
           for the petitioner.

           Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
           Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
           Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
           Mr. Karan Jindal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.

           Mr. P.S.Chauhan, Advocate
           Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate
           Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate
           Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate and
           Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocate
           for respondent - HSVP.

           Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate
           for respondent No. 6.

           Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with
           Mr. Y.S.Chandail, Advocate
           Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate and
           Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate
           for respondents No. 7 to 9.

                               1 of 8
            ::: Downloaded on - 07-04-2025 21:39:57 :::
                               Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047152-DB

CWP-3632-2023 (O & M)                                       -2-




                                          ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein

prays for quashing of the orders dated 23.01.2023 (Annexures P-13 and

P-14), as passed by the Executing Court concerned, in Execution

Petitions bearing Nos. EXE-312-2021 and EXE-461-2021, wherebys

the objection petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Sequence of events.

2. The land in question measuring 656 acres failing in

revenue village of Ramgarh, HB 232, Tehsil and District Panchkula,

was acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, (hereinafter for short called as the Act of 1894), for public

purpose namely for the development and utilization of land as

residential, commercial and institutional area in the urban estate of

Panchkula. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award of

compensation for the aforesaid land.

3. Feeling dis-satisfied from the awarded rate of

compensation, thereupons, the land losers namely Smt. Premwati

widow of Mohinder Singh and Mohan Singh son of Ajmer Singh, thus,

filed reference(s) under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Smt. Premwati

died on 12.06.1994 after the filing of the reference petition.

4. The learned Additional District Judge, Ambala/Reference

Court decided the aforesaid reference. 50 % of the total amount of

compensation was received by Mohan Singh and rest of the 50 % of

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047152-DB

CWP-3632-2023 (O & M) -3-

Smt. Premwati widow of Mohinder Singh was deposited in the Court of

learned Additional District Judge, Ambala.

5. Further, this Court remanded the case to the Reference

Court for re-adjudication. After remand, the learned Reference Court

decided LAC No. 218 of 2000 vide award dated 24.08.2009.

6. It is apt to mention here that on 22.02.1999, Tika Amar

Singh (grandfather of petitioner Aviraj Singh) filed a civil suit bearing

No. 36/1999, wherebys, he claimed the rendition of a declaratory decree

and also claimed the rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory

injunction in respect of the already acquired subject lands. The said

relief was claimed on the ground that the petitioner being the eldest

male in the line of succession to the estate of the deceased predecessor

in interest, therebys, on applying the rule of primogeniture, he alone

becomes entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased predecessor-in-

interest, who is common to all concerned. However, the said civil suit

became dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree

dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure R-9/1).

7. Feeling aggrieved, Amar Singh filed a first appeal

thereagainst. The said appeal became dismissed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 08.02.2012

(Annexure R9/2).

8. Thereafter, Amar Singh (grandfather of the petitioner) filed

RSA No. 2258 of 2012 before this Court, wherebys, he laid a challenge

to the supra passed verdicts by the Courts below. The said RSA became

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047152-DB

CWP-3632-2023 (O & M) -4-

dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure R-9/3),

wherebys, the judgments and decrees (supra) rendered by both the

learned Courts below became upheld, wherebys, the thereins claimed

applicability to the apposite estate vis-a-vis the rule of primogeniture

thus became rejected.

9. Feeling dis-satisfied from the concurrent dis-affirmative

orders, Amar Singh filed SLP before the Apex Court. However, the said

SLP became dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 02.08.2017

(Annnexure R-9/4).

10. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that Ashutosh Singh

Chandel, father of the petitioner, also filed a civil suit seeking

permanent injunction, through re-raising the applicability to the

apposite estate, thus the rule of primogeniture, as became earlier raised

by his father Amar Singh in the supra civil suit. In the said suit,

Ashutosh had impleaded his grandfather Mohan Singh, his father Amar

Singh, and Raj Kumar, Jaivinder Singh, Yaswinder Singh as

respondents.

11. In the said suit an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

became filed by Raj Kumar which was allowed vide order dated

28.01.2014 and it was held that the suit is hit by the bar of res judicata

and accordingly the said civil suit became dismissed.

12. Feeling aggrieved, Ashutosh Chandel filed an appeal

thereagainst before the Additional District Judge, Panchkula. The said

appeal became dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2014.

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047152-DB

CWP-3632-2023 (O & M) -5-

13. Thereafter, aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal,

Ashutosh Chandel filed RSA bearing No. 547 of 2015 before this

Court. The said RSA was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

05.05.2023. Therefore, both the civil suits, whereins, relief for

exclusive succession to the apposite estate was claimed by the

plaintiffs, rather through applying thereons the rule of primogeniture,

thus became dismissed. However, the objections in consonance with the

said rejected claim yet became raised before the learned Executing

Court. The said objections become rejected.

Proceedings before the Executing Court.

14. An application was filed by Mohan Singh (great

grandfather of the petitioner) for release of 75 % of the compensation

awarded being his share (50 % share was his own and 25 % being

entitled to 50 % share of Premvati's share being her legal heir). The said

application was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2011 (Annexure R-9/5),

to the extent of his own share.

15. Late Sh.Raj Kumar decree holder, as legal representative of

Late Premwati filed execution application with respect of 50 % share of

Smt. Premwati on 06.05.2019. Further, respondents No. 7 to 9 filed

Execution Application No. 312 of 2021 (as legal representative of Late

Raj Kumar) with respect to 50 % share of Smt. Premvati.

16. The petitioner namely Aviraj (minor) son of Ashutosh

Singh through his mother filed third party objections under Section 47

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047152-DB

CWP-3632-2023 (O & M) -6-

read with Section 151 CPC opposing payment of share of Sh. Late Raj

Kumar on the principle of primogeniture.

17. The said objections filed by the petitioner in the execution

petition became dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated

23.01.2023.

18. Feeling aggrieved from the afore dis-affirmative order

passed in the execution petition by the Executing Court concerned, the

petitioner has filed thereagainst the instant writ petition before this

Court.

For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the orders of rejection made by the learned Executing Court concerned, upon, the apposite objection petition(s) are validated, and, the present writ petition challenging the orders dismissing the objection petition(s), thus is dismissed.

19. The order dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner,

order whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, appears to become well

banked upon the supra binding and conclusive decisions passed by the

Courts of law. The relevant part of the impugned order (Annexure P-13)

becomes extracted hereinafter.

5. The objector is the son of Shri Ashutosh Singh Chandel. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed on record copy of the order dated 28.01.2014 passed in the Civil Suit titled as Ashutosh Singh Chandel Vs. State of Haryana etc. by the Court of Ms. Roopam Singh, the then learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Panchkula. A perusal of the said order dated 28.01.2014 would show that the application under Order-7 Rule-11 of CPC filed by the defendants in the said civil suit was allowed and the said civil suit was dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed on record copy of order dated 04.08.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2014 by the Court of Shri Rajnish K. Sharma, the then learned Additional District Judge,

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047152-DB

CWP-3632-2023 (O & M) -7-

Panchkula. Said appeal was preferred against the order dated 28.01.2014 as referred to above. A perusal of the order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court would show that in the suit one of the grounds taken by the appellant Ashutosh Singh Chandel for a decree of declaration was that the Jagir estate was heritable only as per the rule of primogeniture in male line and the partition effected by Miya Ajmer Singh during his life time was illegal, null and void. The said contention was not accepted by the learned Appellate court and the appeal filed by said Ashutosh Singh Chandel was dismissed vide the order dated 04.08.2014. In other words, the rule of primogeniture set up by the father of the objector namely Ashutosh Singh Chandel was neither accepted by the learned trial Court nor the learned Appellate Court as is evident from the orders referred to above.

6. to 7 xxxx

8. The above discussion would make it clear that, firstly, the grandfather of the objector namely Tikka Amar Singh set up the rule of primogeniture in their family of Ramgarh but he could not establish the same upto the level of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thereafter, the father of the objector namely Ashutosh Singh Chandel initiated the litigation predicating the same on the rule of primogeniture but without any success. Now the objector Aviraj Singh has come up with the plea that the rule of primogeniture is applicable to his family but then the said question has already been determined upto the Hon'ble Apex Court by which the SLP No. 18910 of 2017 has been dismissed vide the order dated 02.08.2017. xxxx xxxx

10. For the reasons recorded above, the objections filed by the objector Aviraj Singh are false and frivolous to his knowledge. The objections are filed with the objective to delay the proceedings and said objections are sheer abuse of the process of law. Resultantly, the objections filed by the objector Aviraj Singh are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid in District Legal Services Authority, Panchkula by the guardian of the objector Aviraj Singh. Ordered accordingly.

20. Since the objections, whereons, an order of dismissal was

passed, appertained to grounds similar to the one which became raised

by the petitioner- objector, in the previously drawn civil proceedings,

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047152-DB

CWP-3632-2023 (O & M) -8-

which culminated in a decision adversarial to the objector becoming

passed. Therefore, the re-canvassings by the petitioners/objectors, thus,

of those grounds which become covered by the previously recorded

conclusive and binding decisions, is but a stark portrayal of gross abuse

of the process of law.

21. Therefore, after affirming the orders passed in the