Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Bant Singh – Appellant
Versus
Director Land Records – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Factual Background
1. After the finalization of the consolidation proceedings in the mohal concerned, though rasta/path was reserved for the exercising thereons of easementary rights by the land owners concerned, but the petitioners became yet aggrieved, owing to the factum that the said rasta/path rather not providing the relevant access to the petitioners. The said claim was founded qua the reserved rasta/path being used by them being very small, in size, and, that there being an interruption caused by trees and plants inter-se the earmarked path, to the fields of the petitioner. Further, the access to their agricultural land through the said rasta/path was claimed to be not straight and the petitioners being led to cross a Khal through a temporary constructed way.
2. Therefore, to facilitate the exercising of easementary rights at the instance of the aggrieved, the son of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2, made a prayer that at the relevant place after increasing the appositely assigned karams from 1-5 to 1-15, the apposite corrections be made in the revenue records. The above prayer was ventilated through theirs rearing a petition under Section
The reserved village path was meant for exercising easementary rights, and the petitioners could seek demarcation if aggrieved. No evidence of obstruction to the petitioners' easementary rights was f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, in cases involving easement ri....
The judgment establishes the limited jurisdiction of the authority under Section 42 to create passages for exercising easementary rights and addresses the remedy available to petitioners for ensuring....
The court held that a Gram Panchayat cannot authorize land exchanges affecting common paths while legal disputes regarding such paths are pending, affirming that such actions are not in public intere....
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titles.
The passage in dispute does not constitute a private right for the plaintiff but is a public way, and the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish exclusive rights over it.
The jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is limited to correcting clerical errors and cannot be used to alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titl....
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
