1 66 1 0 Civil Revision Noe 4079 of 2011 1 AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No 4079 of 2011 O S Ml Date of decisione 07Il2011 MangeRam Petitioner L Versus 0 0 LaIu I C5 Respondent I CORAM HONBLE MS JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Z e Presentl Mr Kul Bhushan Sharma Advocate for the petitioner 0 Z RITU BAHRI 0 This revision petition under Article 227 of the CO Constitution of India for settingaside the order dated 1232011 ma Z Annexure P wherebythe objectionsfiled by the petitioner Il against the report of the Iocal commissioner assessingthe value of the house in questionhave been dismissed Th e pIaintiff fi Ied a su it for perma nent injunction on 222010 64nnexure P restraining the defendants from a1ienati ng the house bu iIt on Eastern portion of Plot No286 and not to hand over the possessionto any third person other than the plaintiff in terms of compromisedated 2132009 arrived at between the parties in the suit No374 of 2008 In that suit the Rashmi 2013.01.17 11: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 V Civil Revision No079 of 2011 2 plaintiffhad pleadedthat he was owner in possession of plot No286 measuring1 Kanal comprisedi Khewat No 184 situated ill the revenue estate of VillageJainpur TehsiI and District Sonepat to the extent of 518 share Plaintiffs case was that he is the owner of the plot and had allowed the defendant being a n old jaL manto Iive in the house built in half portion of the above stated 0 0 home towards East as a Iicensee in the year 2001 On an earlier 0 occasion the defendant had tried to sell this built up portion of I C5 this house and plaintiffhad filed a suit bearingNo74 of 2008 on 17102008 In that suit compromise dated 21 2009 Z 64nnexureP was arrived at between the parties The 2 r defendant had agreednot to sell the bu iIt u p portion to anyone Z else except the pla intiff An a pplicatio n was made by the C3 Z petitionerfor getting market value assessed of the house The Local Commissioner Junior Engineer MunicipalCouncil Sonepat 00 assessed the market value as Rs 15220001 The petitioner SmW Z filed objectionsto the report of the LocaI Commissioner which has now been rejected vide order dated 123201 1 64nnexure Pl The grievance of the petitioner IS that as per the compromise 6AnnexureP51the defendant had been given a right to Iive in the house The ownershipstiii vested with the plaintiff The plaintiff has a preferentia1 right to pu rchase the constructed house as per theecompromise Mr KuI Bhushan Sharma Advocate for the petitioner Rashmi 2013.01.17 11: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 V Civil Revision No079 of 2011 3 has argued that as per the compromise 64nnexureP the defendant was given only a right to Iive in the house If the defendant proceededto sell the constructed portion he would sell it to the plaintiffas per the market value in the village The Local Commissioner while assessing the market value has included the cost of the plot which has enhance the market value of the constructed area As per the compromise the plot 0 0 remained in the name of plaintiffand therefore the market value I C5 assessed by the Local Commissioner IS not as per the I compromiseeffected between the parties Z As per the compromise 4nnexure P59 the plaintiff C gavehalf share of his plot to the respondentdefendant in which he has constructed his house from his own money The C3 Z respondentdefendantLalu in Iieu thereof gave one Pucca house situated within the abadi deh of VillageJainpur to the plaintiff r11 For all intents and purposes the portion given to the defendant 7 Z was share in the plot and not a Iivingright in the house It was 0m agreedthat if respondeneLaluwas to sell the house over the plot givenin exchangehe would offer the same to the plaintifeMange Ram accordingto market price in the village If MangeRam would not pay that amount then any other person could purchase the house Once the petitioner has accepted the terms of the compromiseand the civil suit No374 of 2008 was decided it does not Iie in his mouth to say that onlyIivingrightswere given to respondentLalu The market value has been assessed e 59L Rashmi 2013.01.17 11: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 1 V Civil Revision Noe 4079 of 2011 4 Rs15220001 by the Local Commissioner The order dated 1232011 64nnexurePl does not suffer from any infirmity The Civil Revision is dismissed T RITU BAHRI VijayAsija JUDGE 0 0 C5 Z C4 0 C3 Z C 7 Z tl 21 5 c 1 y111 C5 Rashmi 2013.01.17 11: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document