Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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