Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana High Court Unreasonable Assumptions Cannot Deny Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim National Security Cannot Be Compromised: Orissa High Court Denies Bail in ISI-Linked Conspiracy Case Specific Performance is a Discretionary Relief; Delay and Inaction Will Disentitle Relief: Karnataka High Court Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer Any Title or Interest in Property: Gujarat High Court FIR Quashed | Breach of Contract Does Not Attract Criminal Prosecution for Cheating Unless Fraudulent Intention Exists at the Outset: Calcutta High Court Strict Compliance with Advertisement Terms Mandatory - Submission of PAP Certificate Along with Application is a Mandatory Requirement: Bombay High Court Termination of Judicial Probationer Quashed: Principles of Article 311(2) and Natural Justice Upheld by Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Presence at the Scene Is Insufficient to Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Kerala High Court Acquits Two Co-Accused in Murder Case

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.       

Similar News