Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking De-sealing of Property

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed Civil Appeal Nos. 4538-4539 of 2023 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 692 of 2023, upholding the order of the Delhi High Court. The appeals were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Kishan, challenging the High Court's orders dated 11.11.2021 and 10.04.2023 in CM (M) No.998 of 2021 and CM (M) No.1089 of 2022, respectively. The Writ Petition sought a writ of mandamus to de-seal a property in Delhi Cantt, but the Supreme Court denied the prayer, asserting that the building plan had not been sanctioned.

The crux of the matter revolved around the jurisdiction of the Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB) and the approval of the building plan. The appellant had contended that a previous order of the Supreme Court in Praveen Kumar v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors. barred the Civil Suit No.759 of 2018 filed by the respondents. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had accepted DCB's jurisdiction and was in the process of constructing the property after obtaining due sanction, making the previous order inapplicable.

Regarding the de-sealing issue, the Court emphasized that the appellant's prayer was contingent on the approval of the building plan. As the building plan had not been sanctioned, the Court found no legal basis to grant the writ of mandamus for de-sealing the property. Moreover, the Court stated that the issue of de-sealing was interconnected with the pending Civil Suit, further diminishing the petitioner's claim.

In delivering the judgment, Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, "We find no infirmity or illegality in the High Court's orders. The prayer for de-sealing cannot be granted at this stage, as it hinges on the approval of the building plan, which has not been sanctioned."

With the Supreme Court's dismissal, the property will remain sealed until the necessary approvals are obtained, and the Civil Suit No.759 of 2018 will proceed in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations.

The judgment serves as a significant legal precedent concerning jurisdictional matters and the requisites for seeking de-sealing orders, setting the stage for future cases involving similar disputes.

 

Date of Decision: July 24, 2023

Ram Kishan (Deceased) through  Legal Representatives & Anr.  vs Manish Kumar & Anr.       

Latest Legal News