Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

EVICTION ORDERS QUASHED DUE TO INVALID DEMARCATION REPORT – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgement , the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Kuldeep Tiwari, delivered a verdict in CWP No. 15051 of 2015, quashing eviction orders issued against the petitioners. The court found that the eviction orders, based on a demarcation report, were untenable due to various irregularities.

The case revolved around the alleged encroachment by the petitioners on a gair mumkin rasta (pathway) in khasra No. 145, owned by the Gram Panchayat. The eviction orders were issued by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari, and the Collector, Rewari, relying on the demarcation report prepared by a revenue officer.

However, the court noted that the demarcation report had several flaws and was not valid. The petitioners had raised objections, highlighting violations of guidelines, an ex parte demarcation process, and the failure to establish fixed points from the map onto the ground. The demarcating officer's failure to serve certain respondents and obtain necessary signatures further weakened the credibility of the report.

Upon careful examination, the court determined that the reliance placed on the infirm demarcation report by the authorities was inappropriate. Consequently, the court set aside the eviction orders and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector. The court directed the Assistant Collector to obtain a fresh and valid demarcation report, ensuring compliance with all relevant rules and instructions. The report would be tendered as evidence, and affected parties would have an opportunity to cross-examine the demarcating officer.

The court emphasized the importance of justice and set a timeframe of six months for the Assistant Collector to decide the case upon receiving the new demarcation report. This ruling aims to ensure a fair resolution for all concerned parties.

Legal experts and observers anticipate that this judgment will have a significant impact on similar cases involving demarcation reports and eviction orders, emphasizing the need for proper adherence to guidelines and due process.

Decided on: 26.05.2023

Savita and others vs Deputy Commissioner, Rewari and others

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Savita-Vs-DC-26-May-23-P^0H-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News