Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Sanjay & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-9774-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Ownership Rights - Haryana Dohlidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muquararidar (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 2010 - The court dismissed the petitioners' claim of 'gair marusi' upon land in dispute, emphasizing that the requirement of the law is fulfilled by the petitioners having been recorded as cultivators, and leasing of the land in favor of 'gair marusi' would not deprive them of their lawful possession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner after their claim of 'gair marusi' upon land was dismissed. Respondents No.5 to 11 had filed an application for ownership rights under the Act, which was initially rejected by the Collector but succeeded on appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' argument based on revenue records was erroneous as the requirement of the law is fulfilled by their recorded status as cultivators, and leasing of the land in favor of 'gair marusi' would not deprive them of their lawful possession. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was the ownership rights over the disputed land, with the petitioners claiming 'gair marusi' and respondents seeking ownership under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Act, emphasizing that the requirement of the law is fulfilled by the petitioners having been recorded as cultivators, and leasing of the land in favor of 'gair marusi' would not deprive them of their lawful possession.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the ownership rights of respondents No.5 to 11 under the Act.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral) - The petitioners are aggrieved because their revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner has been dismissed. Allegedly, the petitioners are 'gair marusi' upon land in dispute. Respondents No.5 to 11 had filed an application for grant of ownership under the Haryana Dohlidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muquararidar (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was rejected by the Collector, however, their appeal succeeded.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued on the basis of revenue record that respondents No.5 to 11 were not in possession of the land in dispute as is evident from column No.9, wherein, the dholidaran are recorded through the 'gair marusi'. Thus, the Financial Commissioner was in error in dismissing the revision petition.
3. The aforementioned argument pre-supposes that the name of the cultivator as recorded in column No.5 is correct. Therein, names of respondents No.5 to 11 have been recorded. The requirement of Section 3 of the Act is that a dholidar in possession should be declared owner w.e.f.the date of coming into force of the Act. This requirement of law is fulfilled by the petitioners having been recorded as cultivators. Further leasing of the land, if any, in favour of 'gair marusi' would not deprive them of their lawful possession and thus, the argument cannot be accepted. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of the law is fulfilled by the petitioners having been recorded as cultivators, and leasing of the land in favor of 'gair m....
The main legal point established is that a person recorded as Dohlidar is entitled to file a title suit under the Act if able to show continuous possession for over twenty years, and the revenue reco....
The authority of the Land Record Officer to correct errors in the revenue record during settlement operations and the inability to change the nature of the land through such corrections.
Ownership of land recorded under a deity cannot be transferred; any attempts to do so result in void transactions, reaffirming perpetual minor status of deities.
Adverse possession requires continuous, open, and hostile possession, which must be proven with adequate evidence beyond mere irrigation slips.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restricted nature of the revisional jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agri....
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
