Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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.

 

Latest Legal News