Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Sukhbir – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Rohtak Division – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of land dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. assessment of title and eviction orders. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. procedural flaws in adjudication. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. need for proper decision-making. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's directive for remand. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. disposition of pending applications. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Factual Background.
Hari and others instituted on 09.05.2008 case No. 14/SDO before the Assistant Collector concerned. In the said case, Sukhbir Singh and others, petitioners herein, became impleaded as respondents therein. The said case was filed under the provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961, (As applicable to the State of Haryana) hereinafter for short called 'the PVCL Act' and there-ins a relief was claimed for the making of an order of eviction, against the impleaded therein respondents.
2. In the said petition, it was averred that the Gram Panchayat, Pehladpur, was the owner of plot/Khasra No. 3864, 3831 and 3829. Furthermore, it was also averred that in the revenue records, a reflection occurs qua, on khasra No. 3864, a Gora Deh exists, qua on khasra No. 3829, an entry of sare aam r
The court affirmed that the Gram Panchayat's claim to ownership over the disputed khasra number was valid, emphasizing the binding nature of the Director's order correcting clerical errors.
The presumption of truth in revenue entries can be rebutted by cogent evidence demonstrating independent possession prior to the statutory cut-off date.
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
