Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Similarly, in ["Smt. Nisha Devi vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"], the order disposed of a petition under Section 250, but the context suggests it pertains to land and demarcation issues rather than direct possession of built structures.
Possession of House Built by Possessor - The main insight from the sources indicates that possession of a house built by the possessor is a protected right unless it is encroachment or built unlawfully.
Further, in ["Raghubar Dayal VS Mst. Mahraja - Allahabad"], the court clarified that a house built without lawful authority could be subject to removal, but possession rights depend on whether the construction was lawful and whether possession was peaceful and recognized.
Removal of Possession - The exercise of Section 250 does not generally authorize the removal of a house built by the possessor unless the house is deemed an encroachment or unlawful construction.
In ["Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Nagpur v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - Chhattisgarh"], the courts highlight that possession rights are protected unless the possession is unlawful or an encroachment, and that removal actions require a legal basis beyond Section 250 proceedings.
Conclusion - Section 250 of the CGLRC is mainly a revenue and demarcation tool and not intended for directly removing possession of houses built by lawful possessors. It can be exercised to address encroachments or illegal constructions but does not generally empower authorities to remove a house built by the possessor unless such construction is unlawful or constitutes encroachment.
References:["MUKHA DEVI vs SMT. KALPANA SINGH - Chhattisgarh"]["NUGAPITIYA v. JOSEPH"]["Smt. Nisha Devi vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]["Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Nagpur v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - Chhattisgarh"]["Raghubar Dayal VS Mst. Mahraja - Allahabad"]
In the realm of property disputes, especially in cantonment areas governed by specialized laws, questions about possession rights often arise. Imagine a scenario where someone has built a house on land and established settled possession. Can authorities simply invoke Section 250 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (often referred to in context with CGLRC provisions) to evict them forcibly? This is a common concern for residents, landowners, and legal practitioners dealing with cantonment land issues.
This article dives deep into the legal nuances, drawing from key judgments and statutory interpretations. We'll address the core question—can sec 250 power cglrc be exercised to remove possession of house built by possessor—and explain why the answer is generally no, without proper proceedings. Note: This is general information based on case law and statutes; consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
Section 250 primarily acts as a bar on courts entertaining suits, applications, or proceedings related to orders or notices under the Act unless an appeal under Section 340 has been preferred and disposed of. As stated: No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order or notice unless an appeal under section 340 is preferred and the same is disposed of by the appellate authority. Ram Kishan (Deceased) through Legal Representatives VS Manish Kumar - 2023 5 Supreme 420
Its scope is procedural, aimed at preventing multiplicity of litigation by channeling disputes through appellate authorities first. It does not grant substantive powers for physical dispossession or demolition of structures. Authorities cannot use this section as a shortcut to remove houses or possessions already in settled use. Rohini Prasad VS Kasturchand - 2000 2 Supreme 365
Indian law staunchly protects settled possession, recognizing it as a shield against arbitrary interference. Possession, once settled and peaceful, cannot be disturbed forcibly without due process. This principle holds even in cantonment lands. Rohini Prasad VS Kasturchand - 2000 2 Supreme 365Ramkishan Deceased Through Lrs. VS Manish Kumar - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1734
Judgments emphasize: Possession of a settled possessor cannot be disturbed forcibly without due process of law. Ramkishan Deceased Through Lrs. VS Manish Kumar - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1734 For a house built and occupied over time, mere invocation of Section 250 does not suffice. Proper eviction suits or proceedings under relevant revenue codes are required.
In contexts akin to CGLRC (Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code), courts have clarified similar powers. For instance, an application under Section 250 CGLRC 1959 was filed to remove alleged encroachment and hand over vacant possession, but the existence of alternative remedies precluded direct court intervention. Smt. Triveni Bai W/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar vs Roshan Lal Gavri S/o Late Manohar Lal Gavri - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9578 This underscores that procedural sections like 250 do not bypass due process.
Another case highlights that where possession follows a lawful allotment—even if resolution-based—and a house is built, eviction under sections like 122-B requires illegality, not just procedural flaws. Proceedings cannot be taken where a person has continued to be in possession on the basis of a lawful allotment made by the Land Management Committee and has also built a house on the basis of such an allotment. ZAHIR VS ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, HARIDWAR - 2007 Supreme(UK) 334
Adverse possession principles further protect long-term possessors. Under limitation laws, if possession is acknowledged or not repealed timely, it perfects. But under the Indian Limitation Act, if the possessor acknowledges the person 'in whose name the possession is being exercised', there can be no adverse possession. And it gets perfected if the owner has not 'repealed' the possessor's claim. Ramchandra Anant Sinai Rataboli VS Manica Sinai Rataboli @ Manik Venkatesh Nayak - 2020 Supreme(Bom) 1164
Reviewing pivotal judgments:- Scope Clarified: Section 250 restricts suits on orders/notices, not execution of lawful evictions or removal of unlawful possession. It does not empower arbitrary dispossession of built houses. Ram Kishan (Deceased) through Legal Representatives VS Manish Kumar - 2023 5 Supreme 420- Settled Possession Safeguard: Courts have ruled that for houses in settled possession, forcible removal is impermissible without process. The law respects settled possession and does not permit forcible removal of houses built and occupied by possessors unless a proper legal process is followed. Rohini Prasad VS Kasturchand - 2000 2 Supreme 365Ramkishan Deceased Through Lrs. VS Manish Kumar - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1734- Distress Warrants and Encroachments: In one instance, a distress warrant under Section 248 CGLRC directed removal from encroached government land, but this followed original orders—not standalone Section 250 power. Gaindlal Dhritlahre vs State Of Chhattisgarh
In Power Grid and NTPC-related disputes, government grants under the Government Grants Act were deemed exempt from certain registrations, but possession handovers post-premium required due process, not summary removal. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2015 Supreme(Chh) 46POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD vs THE STATE OF M.P. and ORS
While Section 250 itself lacks eviction power, exceptions exist under broader laws:- Unlawful Possession: If proven unauthorized (e.g., encroachment on government land), proceedings under revenue codes like CGLRC Sections 248/250 or cantonment eviction rules can lead to removal after hearings. Smt. Triveni Bai W/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar vs Roshan Lal Gavri S/o Late Manohar Lal Gavri - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9578- Exhausted Appeals: Post-Section 340 disposal, courts may entertain suits, but physical eviction needs separate execution.- Alternative Remedies: Courts often direct parties to revenue authorities first, as in mutation disputes where alternative remedies exist. Smt. Triveni Bai W/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar vs Roshan Lal Gavri S/o Late Manohar Lal Gavri - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9578
However, for settled, peaceful possession with a built house, forcible action remains unlawful. Authorities must issue notices, allow appeals, and follow eviction protocols. Ramkishan Deceased Through Lrs. VS Manish Kumar - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1734
Any attempt at summary dispossession risks contempt or damages claims.
In summary, Section 250 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, does not empower authorities to forcibly remove possession of a house built by a settled possessor. It is a procedural bar on courts, not a tool for eviction. Removal demands due process: notices, appeals, and potentially suits. Rohini Prasad VS Kasturchand - 2000 2 Supreme 365Ram Kishan (Deceased) through Legal Representatives VS Manish Kumar - 2023 5 Supreme 420Ramkishan Deceased Through Lrs. VS Manish Kumar - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1734
Key Takeaways:- Settled possession is protected; forcible eviction is typically unlawful.- Use Section 250 for jurisdictional checks, not demolition.- Consult experts for cantonment/CGLRC matters—laws evolve with judgments.
Stay informed on property rights to safeguard your interests. For more legal insights, subscribe to our blog!
References:1. Rohini Prasad VS Kasturchand - 2000 2 Supreme 365 – Scope of Section 250 on proceedings.2. Ramkishan Deceased Through Lrs. VS Manish Kumar - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1734 – Due process for settled possession.3. Ram Kishan (Deceased) through Legal Representatives VS Manish Kumar - 2023 5 Supreme 420 – Court jurisdiction limits.4. Additional sources: Smt. Triveni Bai W/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar vs Roshan Lal Gavri S/o Late Manohar Lal Gavri - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9578, ZAHIR VS ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, HARIDWAR - 2007 Supreme(UK) 334, Ramchandra Anant Sinai Rataboli VS Manica Sinai Rataboli @ Manik Venkatesh Nayak - 2020 Supreme(Bom) 1164, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2015 Supreme(Chh) 46.
#CantonmentsAct #LandPossession #EvictionLaws
7) The documents reveal that the petitioner had earlier moved an application under Section 250 of the CGLRC before the Tehsildar, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2022. ... The defendants opposed the application contending that the plaintiff’s application under Section 250 of the CGLRC was rejected by the Tehsildar. They submitted that the demarcation had already been conducted by the Revenue Inspector pursuant to the order passed by the Tehsildar in Revenue Case No. ... The trial court, after considering the ....
The question we have therefore to decide is, whether in respect of this improvements made by him the appellant was entitled as against Molligoda to retain possession of the house he built until he was compensated. ... The learned District Judge held that the defendant was entitled to compensation, but that he was not entitled to the jus retentionis in respect of the house built by him. ... built by him "for any length of period." ... The defendant entered upon the land and #HL_ST....
(CGLRC), whereby, the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 13.06.2025. ... Although the application did not specifically mention that it was filed under Section 248 of the CGLRC, this omission is not determinative.
Replying to the aforesaid application filed u/s 250 CGLRC 1959 the respondent No.2; Mansha Ram submitted before the Court of Ld. ... possession back to him. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Accordingly, by filing the aforesaid application u/s 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959, the Respondent No.1 requested to remove the alleged encroachment made by the Respondent No.2 on the said land and to handover it's vacant ... Therefore, the application filed by the Respondent No....
Where the defendants built a house adjoining the plaintiff's by fixing their beam and wall plates at the end of the eaves of the plaintiff's which overhung the defendants' land, and afterwards, desiring to build a taller house, notified to the plaintiff that they would remove his ... "It is clear that defendants recognized this fact when they removed their house but did not remove plaintiff's eaves. ... Adjoining house owners-Overhanging eaves of ....
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (for short ' Power Grid' ) and National Thermal Power Corportion Limited (for short ' NTPC' ) are Public Sector undertakings. ... The object further states that WHEREAS doubts have arisen as to the extent and operation of the TP Act and as to the power of the Government to improve limitations and restrictions upon grants and other transfers of land made by it or under its authority, and it is expedient to remove such doubts, the ... After payment of the premium am....
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (for short 'Power Grid') and National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (for short 'NTPC') are Public Sector undertakings. ... The object further states that WHEREAS doubts have arisen as to the extent and operation of the TP Act and as to the power of the Government to improve limitations and restrictions upon grants and other transfers of land made by it or under its authority, and it is expedient to remove such doubts, the ... As earlier stated, by virtue of Se....
his possession from the encroached Government land. ... ') directing the 6-12-2016 under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land is issued in execution of original order passed under Section Petitioner would assail the distress warrant issued by the respondent No.3 whereby he has been directed to remove
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (for short 'Power Grid') and National Thermal Power Corporation Limited After payment of the premium amount and deposit of the annual rent, the petitioners have been handed over possession ... National Thermal Power Corpn. ... Ltd., Korba Super Thermal Power Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the TP Act') so far as relates to grants from the Government and to remove
The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can ... Sharda Vishwanath thereafter, he was in peaceful possession of the suit land and got his name mutated in the Revenue Records and later, he raised construction over the suit land. ... Defendant No.1 filed the written statement and stated that the suit land was purchased by him through a registered sale deed on 10.09.2015 and he is in possession#....
But under the Indian Limitation Act, if the possessor acknowledges the person “in whose name the possession is being exercised”, there can be no adverse possession. And it gets perfected if the owner has not “repealed” the possessor’s claim.
But under the Indian Limitation Act, if the possessor acknowledges the person "in whose name the possession is being exercised", there can be no adverse possession. And it gets perfected if the owner has not "repealed" the possessor's claim.
A higher authority and specially the authority competent to remove the person from service can take action to suspend the person. It is a temporary deprivation of office, but by reason of suspension the person suspended does not lose his office nor does he suffer any degradation. The Division Bench held that the suspension literally means the Act of debarring for a time from a function or privilege. The power to remove can be exercised by an authority higher than the appointing authority.
If the person allotted again occupies the land at a subsequent date in an unlawful manner then only proceedings under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. In the cited case, the Abadi plot in question was auctioned and by unanimous resolution it was allotted to the highest bidder, Kummi. Act can be taken, but these proceedings cannot be taken where a person has continued to be in possession on the basis of a lawful allotment made by the Land Management Committee and has also built a house on the basis of such an allotment.” In the case at hand, only the resolution was passed by....
The argument that Sec.48(1) is the only method in which the Government can withdraw from the acquisition has, therefore, no force because the Government can always cancel the notifications under Secs.4 and 6 by virtue of its power under Sec.21 of the General Clauses Act and this power can be exercised before the Government directs the Collector to take action under Sec.7. Sec.48(2) provides for compensation in such a case. This power can be exercised even after the Collector has made the award under Sec.11 but before he takes possession under Sec.15.
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
