Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Sushil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Through the instant petition, the petitioners seek quashing of order(s) made on 09.12.2009 (Annexure P-5), order(s) made on 13.06.2012 (Annexure P-6), order(s) made on 14.06.2013 (Annexure P-8) and order(s) made on 14.09.2016 (Annexure P-9), whereby the espoused declaratory relief became denied to them. Moreover, the petitioners pray, that this Court may affirm Annnexure P-3, whereby, rather the petitioners were declared to be owners in possession of the disputed lands.
2. This Court would proceed to validate (Annexure P-3) and would become led to invalidate the impugned Annexures (supra), only when the petitioners became revealed, by the jamabandis drawn on or prior to 26th January, 1950, to thus through their predecessors-in-interest, make independent cultivating possession of the suit lands. Resultantly the petitioners would become well leveraged to draw, an able sustenance, from the provisions carried in Section 2 (g)(viii) in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As applicable to Haryana) hereinafter for short called as the 'Act of 1961'. The said provisions are extracted hereinafter.
A claimant must prove individual cultivating possession prior to 1950 under exclusionary clause provisions for land ownership rights under relevant statutes.
The classification of lands as shamlat patti is upheld; civil courts lack jurisdiction over ownership disputes regarding shamlat deh lands under the Act.
The presumption of truth in revenue records prevails unless cogent evidence is presented to the contrary, affirming the Gram Panchayat's ownership over disputed lands.
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
