NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

No Evidence of Legal Error or Misjudgement Found: High Court Upholds Lower Court Judgments in Land Ownership Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on November 30, 2023, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed an appeal filed in the case of Hari Singh Ruhal vs. Hukam Chand, marking a conclusive end to a prolonged land ownership dispute. The appellant, Hari Singh Ruhal, had challenged the judgments and decrees of both the trial court and the lower appellate court, which had dismissed his suit seeking declaration of ownership over a piece of land.

The High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta, found no substantial grounds to interfere with the decisions of the lower courts. In her judgment, Justice Mehta emphasized, “the impugned judgments and decrees, as passed by both the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court.”

The dispute centered around the plaintiff’s claim that he and his father had been in cultivating possession of the land since 1965-66, thus establishing his ownership as an occupancy tenant. However, both the trial court and the lower appellate court found insufficient evidence to support these claims. The High Court concurred with these findings, noting significant inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s assertions and the revenue records.

One of the key points highlighted in the High Court’s judgment was the plaintiff’s failure to meet the criteria of an ‘occupancy tenant’ under the Punjab Occupancy Tenant (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. The court observed that the revenue records did not support the plaintiff’s claim of uninterrupted possession, thus disqualifying him from claiming ownership rights under the Act.

Justice Mehta’s judgment also referred to a Supreme Court decision, underscoring the definition of an ‘occupancy tenant’ and the necessary conditions to be met under the Act of 1952. The High Court found that the appellant did not fulfill these criteria, leading to the dismissal of his appeal.

Justice Mehta affirmed, “As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned judgments and decrees...are hereby upheld and the appeal in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.”

Date of Decision: 30.11.2023

Hari Singh Ruhal VS Hukam Chand       

Latest Legal News