Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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

 

Latest Legal News