Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Mutation Entry Does Not Confer Title: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Land Dispute Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal in a long-standing land dispute, upholding the decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The case involved a contested site allegedly owned by the appellants, with the court reaffirming that mutation entries do not confer ownership and that land recorded as shamlat deh cannot be allotted during consolidation.

The dispute dates back to a suit filed by Devi Sahai, predecessor of the plaintiff-appellants, against Ganpat Ram. The contested site, identified as ‘ABCD’ in the attached plan, was claimed to be part of Plot No. 212, owned by the plaintiffs. The defendant, whose house adjoined the site, had allegedly opened a door and constructed a chabutra (platform) on the disputed site, leading to a suit for a prohibitory injunction to close the door and remove the construction. The defendant contended that the site was part of the shamlat deh, a common land vesting in the Panchayat, as previously decided in Civil Suit No. 75 (1952).

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both dismissed the suit, finding that the land in question was shamlat deh and could not be allotted to individuals during consolidation. The courts relied on prior admissions by the appellants' predecessor and relevant legal precedents.

The court emphasized that a mutation entry in revenue records does not confer title. "As per the settled proposition of law, mutation entries are for fiscal purposes and do not establish ownership," noted Justice Alka Sarin, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The appellants' argument that mutation sanctioned in their favor conferred ownership was thus rejected.

The court also addressed the confusion over pre- and post-consolidation plot numbers, noting that the appellants failed to provide a cogent explanation for discrepancies in the documents submitted.

Justice Alka Sarin stated, "The consolidation authority had no right to partition shamlat deh land amongst proprietors and allot it to the plaintiffs. The earlier admissions and the established legal framework negate the appellants' claims."

The dismissal of the appeal reinforces the legal principle that mutation entries do not confer ownership and highlights the limitations on the powers of consolidation authorities regarding shamlat deh land. This decision upholds the integrity of prior legal admissions and the established legal framework governing common lands.

Date of Decision: May 6, 2024

Paras Ram & Ors. vs. Ganpat Ram

Similar News