Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

Similar News