Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Land Redistribution Jurisdiction Clarified by Punjab & Haryana High Court: "Question of Title Must Go to Civil Court," Rules Bench

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reinforced the necessity of addressing questions of land title before civil courts rather than consolidation authorities. The bench comprising HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA delivered a judgment on 10th January 2024, setting a clear precedent for land dispute cases.

The judgment centered around a challenge to the dismissal order under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, 1948, concerning the repartition of disputed lands. The court observed that Consolidation Authorities lack the jurisdiction to decide questions of land title and that such issues should be brought before a competent civil court.

In its ruling, the court emphasized the need to follow legal precedent, referencing the case of 'Parkash Singh and Others Vs. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and Others.' The court stated, "It is beyond debate that if a question arises regarding any right, title, or interest in 'Shamilat Deh,' the only authority empowered to answer such a question is the Collector, exercising power under Section 11 of the 1961 Act."

The judgment further dismissed the writ petition, affirming the alignment of the impugned order with established legal principles. The court reserved the right for private respondents to pursue remedies in accordance with the legal precedent.

The challenge to Annexure P-7, which pertained to the auction of Grass (Baggar) standing over the disputed land, was also deemed infructuous due to an earlier court order, which had clarified the scope of the stay.

 Date of Decision: 10.01.2024

CHUHAR CHAND AND ORS. VS ADDL. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, PUNJAB AND ORS.

 

Similar News