Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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