Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Settled Possession Cannot Be Disturbed Except by Due Process of Law: High Court Upholds Rightful Possession

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Judicature at Patna has reinforced the principles of lawful possession and property rights. Presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra, the court dismissed a Civil Revision Application pertaining to a dispute over the possession of immovable property, emphasizing that “settled possession cannot be disturbed except by due process of law.”

The case, centered around a property dispute, Involved a plaintiff seeking restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The judgment, delivered on November 10, 2023, carefully examined the possession and dispossession dynamics within the stipulated six months period. The court observed that in proceedings under Section 6, the primary concern is the verification of possession and not the investigation of the property’s title. This summary procedure is a testament to the legislature’s intent to prevent forcible dispossession without legal sanction.

Justice Mishra’s verdict underlined the limited scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction in cases decided under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the judgment made it clear that while appeals and reviews are barred under this section, the High Court may intervene in exceptional circumstances.

The court's decision has been widely appreciated for Its balanced approach in affirming the trial court’s findings. The trial court had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing their possession of the disputed land and subsequent unlawful dispossession.

Representing the petitioners were advocates Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, while the opposite party was represented by Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Madan Mohan, Mr. Ritik Shah, and Ms. Aishwarya Shree.

This judgment is significant as it reinforces the sanctity of possession rights and the importance of adhering to legal procedures in property disputes. The High Court’s emphasis on the due process of law in cases of dispossession highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and property rights in India.

 Date of Decision: 10-11-2023

Dilip Sharma VS Badal Tiwary

Latest Legal News