Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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