No Evidence of Legal Error or Misjudgement Found: High Court Upholds Lower Court Judgments in Land Ownership Dispute

Share:
senior bail finger bail public accused 202 Voter Tenant Imagination Constitutional Law landlord 90 rti Punishment jails cheque compromise medical injury station evidence ada motor employee Right Punjab evidence wife penalty Punjab suicide 1 students vamendment la nd 44 fir suit interim consideration evidence property food financialfinancial Gram ginder wife order 202 natural DEMARCATION Property

In a significant judgment delivered on November 30, 2023, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed an appeal filed in the case of Hari Singh Ruhal vs. Hukam Chand, marking a conclusive end to a prolonged land ownership dispute. The appellant, Hari Singh Ruhal, had challenged the judgments and decrees of both the trial court and the lower appellate court, which had dismissed his suit seeking declaration of ownership over a piece of land.

The High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta, found no substantial grounds to interfere with the decisions of the lower courts. In her judgment, Justice Mehta emphasized, “the impugned judgments and decrees, as passed by both the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court.”

The dispute centered around the plaintiff’s claim that he and his father had been in cultivating possession of the land since 1965-66, thus establishing his ownership as an occupancy tenant. However, both the trial court and the lower appellate court found insufficient evidence to support these claims. The High Court concurred with these findings, noting significant inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s assertions and the revenue records.

One of the key points highlighted in the High Court’s judgment was the plaintiff’s failure to meet the criteria of an ‘occupancy tenant’ under the Punjab Occupancy Tenant (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. The court observed that the revenue records did not support the plaintiff’s claim of uninterrupted possession, thus disqualifying him from claiming ownership rights under the Act.

Justice Mehta’s judgment also referred to a Supreme Court decision, underscoring the definition of an ‘occupancy tenant’ and the necessary conditions to be met under the Act of 1952. The High Court found that the appellant did not fulfill these criteria, leading to the dismissal of his appeal.

Justice Mehta affirmed, “As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned judgments and decrees…are hereby upheld and the appeal in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.”

Date of Decision: 30.11.2023

Hari Singh Ruhal VS Hukam Chand       

            

Download Judgment

Share: