ASHWANI KUMAR DHINGRA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

ASHWANI KUMAR DHINGRA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

There could be no co-parcenary between brothers only excluding the father; prior writ petition filed by father and brother was not on behalf of appellant, nor was coparcenary pleaded; acceptance of compensation under protest preserves right to reference but does not automatically entitle one to challenge acquisition after several years; writ petition filed five years after notification was not maintainable as appellant accepted compensation under protest only to seek reference and not to challenge acquisition.

Parties
Appellant: Ashwani Kumar Dhingra; Respondent: State of Punjab
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 March 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab and Haryana High Court Decision Dismissing Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Co Ownership, Coparcenary, Maintainability of Writ Petition, Land Acquisition Remedy, Acceptance of Compensation Under Protest
Land Acquisition Hindu Law Constitutional Law Co Ownership Coparcenary Maintainability of Writ Petition Land Acquisition Remedy Acceptance of Compensation Under Protest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashwani Kumar Dhingra

Appellant

State of Punjab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab and Haryana High Court Decision Dismissing Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether writ petition by co-owners (father and brother) can be deemed as filed on behalf of appellant
  2. 2 Whether coparcenary can be pleaded between brothers excluding father
  3. 3 Whether compensation must be accepted only under protest to seek reference

Ratio Decidendi

There could be no co-parcenary between brothers only excluding the father; prior writ petition filed by father and brother was not on behalf of appellant, nor was coparcenary pleaded; acceptance of compensation under protest preserves right to reference but does not automatically entitle one to challenge acquisition after several years; writ petition filed five years after notification was not maintainable as appellant accepted compensation under protest only to seek reference and not to challenge acquisition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Parties to bear their own costs