Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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