Back
K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Inder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Punjab – Respondent
ORDER
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 5-3-1980 made in Civil Writ Petition No. 1592 of 1967.
2. The admitted facts are that the appellants/tenants were in possession of the land bearing specified khasra numbers mentioned in the appellate order (the details of which are not in dispute), admeasuring 190 kanals, 6 marlas in Village Kotrani in Kapurthala District of Punjab. Their application C made under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (13 of 1955) (for short, the Act) was rejected by order dated 25-4-1960 on the ground that they did not have possession for 12 years which was confirmed by all the authorities including the High Court in the writ petition on 7-9- 1964. Subsequently, they made second application on 26-3-1965 for conferment of ownership rights based on tenancy from the respondents. Similarly, the landlord filed an application for reservation of the land for personal cultivation. The authorities have dismissed the application of the landlord for reservation of the land which order became final. The application of the appellants was allowed on 15-12- 1965. On apeal, it was confir
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "questioned" that would suggest a negative treatment or disapproval in subsequent judgments. Therefore, based solely on the information given, no case is identified as bad law.
Followed / Cited:
The references to Inder Singh and Others vs. ... Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others (1997) 11 SCC 206 appear multiple times (SHIV KUMAR VS RAJ KUMAR ALIAS RAJU - 2014 0 Supreme(Chh) 99, Pappu Alias Praveen Kumar VS Board of Revenue - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 1917), indicating that this case has been cited in subsequent decisions. The repeated mention suggests it is considered persuasive or authoritative, but there is no explicit indication that it has been overruled or criticized.
The mention of the case in the context of support ("In support of his submissions he would rely upon the following decisions") suggests it is used as a precedent rather than being questioned or distinguished.
Uncertain / Ambiguous:
The second case (Miraj Medical Centre Miraj VS Sunil Tukaram Danane - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1616) appears to be a reference to the same case (SCC 206), but there is no explicit statement about its treatment—whether it has been followed, distinguished, or criticized—beyond its citation.
The third case (Pappu Alias Praveen Kumar VS Board of Revenue - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 1917) again references the same case (Inder Singh) and notes that it has been held by their Lordships, but does not specify if it has been reaffirmed, distinguished, or otherwise treated negatively.
Since the list primarily contains references to the same case and does not include any explicit treatment indicators, the overall treatment of these cases appears neutral or supportive without evidence of overruled or bad law status.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
