Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

LAND REFORMS ACT CEASES TO APPLY AFTER URBANIZATION NOTIFICATION: UNDER DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that once a notification is issued declaring rural areas to be urbanized, the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 cease to apply. The judgment resolves a long-standing land dispute and provides clarity on the effect of urbanization on the application of relevant acts.

Quoting from the judgment, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, and Bela M. Trivedi stated, "Once a notification has been published under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. In sequel thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non est and lose their legal significance."

The case involved a dispute over possession of land, and the judgment brings relief to the respondents who had been struggling for over three decades to assert their ownership rights. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice, ordering the appellants to hand over physical possession of the land within two months.

Highlighting the significance of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Court emphasized that it does not distinguish between rural and urban areas. The Act, which aims at the development of Delhi according to sanctioned master plans, was considered a complete code in itself for land disposal purposes.

The judgment also addressed the relevance of previous decisions, including the case of Smt. Indu Khorana, which upheld the view that the Act, 1954 does not apply once an urbanization notification is issued. The Court, however, disagreed with the judgment in Umed Singh, which examined the impact of the Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 in relation to the Act, 1957.

With the dismissal of the appeal, the pending civil suit related to the land dispute stands disposed of. The Court's decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring timely resolution of land disputes and protecting the rights of rightful owners.

Date of Decision: March 14, 2023

MOHINDER SINGH(DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS     

Latest Legal News