No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals Over Encroachment Claims Due to Improper Demarcation Report

29 September 2024 12:29 PM

By: sayum


Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed three regular second appeals (RSA-4112-2019, RSA-4098-2019, and RSA-5452-2019) filed by the plaintiffs in Maan Singh v. Kirandeep Singh & Ors., challenging earlier judgments that rejected their claims of encroachment on a village passageway. The Court found that the plaintiffs’ demarcation report was not prepared in accordance with legal standards and dismissed the appeals for lacking any substantial questions of law.

The plaintiffs, led by Maan Singh, had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondents, alleging that they had encroached on a passage (Khasra No. 2973) leading to the plaintiffs’ homes in Kotkapura, District Faridkot. The plaintiffs claimed that a demarcation report from 2010 supported their case, but the trial court dismissed the suit, finding the report unreliable. The plaintiffs’ appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court on October 13, 2018.

The central issue in the case was whether the plaintiffs had proved that the respondents had encroached on the village passage, based on a demarcation report.

The plaintiffs contended that a 2010 demarcation conducted by a revenue official confirmed the encroachment. However, the respondents disputed the validity of the report, arguing that it was done without proper notice to them and was not in compliance with legal procedures. The Court noted several inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ evidence, including admissions from witnesses that the site plan was based on the plaintiffs' statements rather than proper verification of land records.

“The site plan on the basis of which the suit was filed was not prepared in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders.”​

Additionally, the plaintiff's witness, Bhupinder Singh, admitted in cross-examination that no summons were issued to the defendants during the demarcation process, further undermining the credibility of the report.

Justice Alka Sarin, writing for the High Court, found that both the trial and appellate courts had correctly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any legal grounds for challenging the earlier rulings, stating:

“No substantial question of law arises in the present cases. The appeals being devoid of any merits are accordingly dismissed.”​

The Court also emphasized that the demarcation report, which was the plaintiffs' primary evidence, lacked legal validity due to procedural flaws.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s dismissal of the appeals reinforces the necessity of proper legal procedures in land disputes, particularly regarding the preparation and verification of demarcation reports. The decision upholds the previous rulings and emphasizes that flawed evidence cannot be the basis for successful legal claims.

Date of Decision: 25-09-2024

Maan Singh v. Kirandeep Singh & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News