UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court Upholds Land Allocation Decision: Petitioner Failed To Prove Their Claim

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana today upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, in a contentious land allocation dispute involving 12 Bighas 10 Biswas of land in the village Kalauli Jattan.

The Bench, consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sudeepti Sharma, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, Bachan Singh and others, against the State of Punjab and others. The petitioners had sought direction for possession of the disputed land, claiming it was allotted for the construction of their houses.

In a pivotal observation, the Court noted, "the petitioner has failed to prove their claim over the above land." This statement reflected the crux of the judicial findings, emphasizing the lack of substantiation in the petitioner's claim to the specific land parcel in Khasra No. 80 of the village.

The case involved a detailed examination of various legal proceedings, reports, and orders, tracing back to previous writ petitions and a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. The dispute centered around the partition and allocation of land between Gram Panchayat Kalauli and Kalauli Jattan. The division of land was based on voter counts and the geographical location of the respective Panchayats.

The Court's decision also referenced the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, underscoring the legal framework guiding their judgment.

Date of Decision:12 January 2024

Bachan Singh and others VS The State of Punjab and others     

 

Latest Legal News