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

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