Back
Prem Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged the following communications/ certificate:
(ii) Certificate dated 6th of July, 2020, whereby the authorities of Power Development Department have claimed to have taken over the possession of State land measuring 2 kanals falling in Khasra No. 96 in Village Chowadhi for construction of Receiving Station.
(iii) Communication of respondent No. 5 dated 25th of June, 2019, addressed to respondent No. 4, whereby the former has certified to the later, by reference to revenue documents, that the land measuring 2 kanals each falling under Khasra No. 96 and 1328 situated at Village Chowadhi is State land.
2. The impugned communications have been assailed by the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that the sub
Acquisition of Land - Grant of compensation - Predecessors-in-interest continued to be in cultivating possession of the subject land as occupancy tenants and this position is clearly reflected in the....
The court established that actual possession and the integrity of the mutation process are critical in determining tenancy rights and prospective ownership under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and can be denied due to unreasonable delay in seeking relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unilateral decisions affecting property rights without due process and contravening principles of natural justice are not sustainable.
The fundamental right to property cannot be disregarded, and citizens cannot be divested of their land without due process, even if there is a delay in approaching the court.
The State cannot dispossess individuals of property without proper legal processes, affirming the entitlement to compensation for land occupied without due course of law.
If on the relevant date appellants were in cultivation and possession of the land, they are entitled to registration of the occupancy rights in respect of the land.
State's unauthorized occupation of private property without acquisition violates Article 300A; unsubstantiated donation claims rejected; delay and laches no bar to compensation for continuing wrong. ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would not confer any benefit on the owner of the land if possession has been t....
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
