Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Grants Land Rights to Non-Backward Community: Reaffirms Right to Be Heard for All Claimants

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the relief granted in the Banwasi Sewa Ashram case is not limited to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or other backward communities. The court emphasized that the right to be heard before a competent authority must be extended to all claimants, regardless of their community. This landmark decision ensures that multiple communities have access to justice and protects their rights to possess land.

Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, while delivering the judgment, stated, "The Banwasi Sewa Ashram judgment confers upon the inhabitants of the subject land, irrespective of their community, only a procedural right to be heard by the appropriate authority, and not a substantive right of possession/inhabitation of the land." They further highlighted the importance of inclusivity within forest communities, which extends beyond recognized Adivasi and backward communities.

The court also examined the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It clarified that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the original order exceeded its jurisdiction or the findings were patently perverse. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts in favor of the appellants were not perverse, and thus the High Court erred in re-evaluating the evidence.

This judgment comes as a relief to the appellants, who were facing eviction from the land they had been in possession of for agricultural purposes. The Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the principle of substantive justice and ensures that every party with a legitimate claim over the notified land has the opportunity to be heard and have their claims properly adjudicated.

The ruling has wider implications for land disputes across the country, as it underscores the need for a fair and inclusive approach to resolving such matters. It recognizes that forest communities comprise various groups, including those who may not have official recognition but have ancestral connections to the land. The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing a platform for all claimants to present their cases and have their rights protected.

This verdict sets a precedent for future land disputes and reinforces the significance of evidence presented and scrutinized during the trial stage. The Supreme Court has highlighted that evidence confirmed by lower courts should only be reversed in exceptional circumstances.

The judgment concludes by allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. The orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and Additional District Judge are confirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions as the dispute in question was decided in favor of the appellants.

Date of Decision: 5th July, 2023

HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ORS .    vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Latest Legal News