Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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