Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Once Land Is Acquired By The Government, Any Existing Private Claims Over Such Land Stand Extinguished: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has dismissed an appeal challenging the ownership and management rights over a piece of land in Karkardooma, Delhi. The court upheld the government's acquisition of the land, rendering the private claim of ownership by Shiv Prakash, the appellant, untenable.

The case, titled Shiv Prakash versus Mool Chand & Ors. (RSA 173/2017), revolved around a dispute over a land parcel in Karkardooma, Delhi, which had been acquired by the government. Shiv Prakash, the plaintiff, sought a declaration of ownership against the respondents, claiming that his late father was the recorded owner and that the land was managed by defendant No.1 as an agent (Pairokar) of his late mother.

In a detailed judgment dated 16th January 2024, Justice Arora observed, "In view of the judgment of the Reference Court dated 20.07.1976, the assertion of the plaintiff that late Sh. Jaswant Singh and after his death in 1975, late Smt. Mohro Devi was in physical possession of Khasra No. 580, is not borne out from the record." The court emphasized that the completion of the acquisition process by the government nullified any private claims of title and possession.

The court also noted the plaintiff's inability to prove the alleged Pairokar relationship, stating, "Therefore, on the basis of evidence led by the plaintiff, he has been unable to establish on record that defendant no.1 was a Pairokar of late Smt. Mohro Devi."

This judgment highlights the legal principle that once land is acquired by the government, any existing private claims over such land stand extinguished. It also reinforces the necessity of concrete evidence in asserting legal relationships and claims over property. The court clarified that Mool Chand, despite occupying the land, is also recognized as a trespasser with no legal rights to it.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has been authorized to take actions against any encroachment, in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 16th January, 2024

SHIV PRAKASH VS MOOL CHAND & ORS

 

Similar News