Back
B. R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Jai Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeal and case history (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court's analysis and legal reasoning (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 4. final conclusion of the court regarding the appeal (Para 63 , 64) |
JUDGMENT
| INDEX | |
| I. | BACKGROUND |
| II. | SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |
| III. | CONSIDERATION |
| (a) | Consideration of the Constitution Bench Judgments of this Court in Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh and Bhagat Ram |
| (b) | Consideration of the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in impugned judgment and final order referring its earlier judgment in Gurjant Singh and several other judgments |
| (c) | Applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis to the facts of the present case. |
| IV. | CONCLUSIONS |
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and final order passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
The amendment to the Punjab Village Common Lands Act was unconstitutional as it violated proprietary rights without compensating landowners, affirming prior jurisprudence that unutilized land ('bacha....
The court reaffirmed that lands reserved for common purposes should not revert to proprietors unless formally reallocated, emphasizing established precedents in land management law.
The omission of provisions related to shamlat deh in the Punjab Village Common Lands Act is unconstitutional, infringing on riparian owners' property rights without due compensation.
The omission of provisions regarding ownership rights over lands affected by river action was declared unconstitutional, violating property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The court affirmed that land recorded as Abadi under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains vested in the State, allowing for resumption under Section 117(6) despite claims ....
The classification of lands as shamlat patti is upheld; civil courts lack jurisdiction over ownership disputes regarding shamlat deh lands under the Act.
The court affirmed the authority of the Gram Panchayat to auction disputed land, ruling that the petitioner's claims of ownership were undermined by his own leasing actions and lack of evidence.
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
