Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

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