Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Pehalad (Deceased) Through Lrs – Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat Yadupur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.
1. This is plaintiffs/appellants' first appeal against the judgment and decree of reversal, dated 15.01.1992, passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. The plaintiffs/appellants with defendant/respondent no.2 filed a suit for declaration and injunction, dated 19.12.1984, claiming to be owners/proprietors in possession of land measuring 532 kanals, 3 marlas situated within revenue estate of village Papri, Tehsil (now District) Palwal, as per their shares recorded in jamabandi for the year 1951-52. It was pleaded that during the consolidation of holdings the suit land had been given to them in lieu of their land comprising in khewat no.1, khatoni no.1 to 27. However, the authorities wrongly entered the name of defendant/respondent no.1/Gram Panchayat, Yadupur, in the revenue record as owner qua this land. This deletion of their names, as also of their predecessors-in-interest, as owners of the suit land was in violation of provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act of 1948') and the rules made thereunder. There was no area of shamlat deh in village Papri prior to consolidation, nor
Civil Courts may not interfere with consolidation records unless significant arbitrariness is demonstrated; judicial procedures must be adhered to diligently.
The court affirmed that disputes regarding consolidation schemes must be resolved through appellate remedies, and title disputes among estate holders are to be adjudicated by civil courts, not under ....
Disputes related to land entitlements and mis-allotments should be settled in a civil suit, not under Section 42 of the Act of 1948.
Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.
(1) Revenue entries are not documents of title and do not ordinarily confer or extinguish title in land but, nonetheless, where revenue authorities or consolidation authorities are competent to deter....
The court established that disputes over land entitlements post-consolidation must be resolved in civil court, not through administrative corrections under the Consolidation Act.
The suit was held to be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act as the disputed land was recorded as Navin Parti during consolidation operation and the plaintiff did not take any steps to correct th....
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
