0

Supreme Court Affirms Land Ownership Rights Bihar Land Dispute Case, Rejects State Claim

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , ,

Case Title – Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360

Case Number – 1627 of 2016

Dated on – 1st May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360, the Appellant, Ram Balak, instituted a suit for possession and confirmation of the possession over 0.32 decimal of land in the Village of Kishanpur, Bihar. Initially, the land belonged to Rambit Kuwer, who through a lease deed in 1341 fasli settled it in favour of Makhan Singh. Until his death, Makhan Singh continued in possession of the land, subsequently his adopted son, Ram Balak Singh, inherited the said land. During the process of consolidation under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the name of Ram Balak, the adopted son of Makhan Singh was recorded as the owner of the said land by the Consolidation officer. However, thereafter, the State Authorities claimed whole of the land, inclusive of the suit land, as pond land and intervened with the possession of the Appellant. The Appellant instituted a suit against the State of Bihar and another party seeking the declaration of his title over the land and the confirmation of his possession. The trial court ruled the suit in favour of the Appellant, but the decision of the court was reversed by the First Appellate Court and asserted by the High Court. The Appellant in this case, appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Appellate Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that he and his predecessor-in-interest have been in possession of the land since it was resolved in their favour.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Consolidation Officer had acknowledged his rights over the land and directed his name to be recorded in the records of rights, which should be final and conclusive.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellate Courts erred in revising the decree of the Trial Court, as he had furnished sufficient evidence to establish his rights and possession over the land.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the whole of the land was pond land and could not be settled in favour of the Appellant.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the suit was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956, which bars the civil matters falling under the Jurisdiction of the Consolidation Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act, 1956 prescribes the decision of matters relating to charges and transactions affecting rights or interest recorded in revised records
  2. Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956 prescribes the Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
  3. Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by court
  4. Article 32 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Right to constitutional remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen
  5. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of the High Courts to issue certain writs
  6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of Superintendence over all courts by the High Court

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the order of the Consolidation Officer acknowledging the title of the Appellant over the land can be ignored or reversed by the Civil Court?
  2. Whether the suit instituted by the Appellant is barred under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360, analysed the provisions of the Consolidation Act, 1956, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the matters related to land consolidation. The court, in this present case, observed that the order of the Consolidation Officer recognizing the rights of the Appellant over the land had attained finality and could not be ignored or reversed by the Civil Court. The Court, in this present case, held that the suit instituted by the Appellant was not challenging any decision of the Consolidation Court but seeking the recognition of his rights over the land. Thus, the court concluded that the suit instituted by the Appellant was not barred under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act,1956. The court allowed the appeal of the Appellant, set aside the judgments of the Appellate Courts and restored the decree of the Trial Court in favour of the Appellant.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

The Court must first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party for condonation of delay and cannot allow it as a matter of generosity: Supreme Court

Blog , , , , , ,

Case title: Union of India & Anr. Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy

Case no.: S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019

Decision on: April 3rd, 2024

Quoram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Facts of the case

The suit property situated at Staveley Road, Pune was leased by the respondent in favour of the appellants (Centre) in 1951. The appellants however, breached the terms of the lease deed, which led to the institution of civil suit by the respondents. The Court ruled in favour of the respondents allowing them to recover the possession of their suit property & arrears towards the rent. Subsequently, the plea challenging the judgement was dismissed by the Appellant Court.

The appellants contested the same before the High Court of Bombay invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But, it was dismissed for non-prosecution. In 2019, the appellants through a Civil Application sought for restoration of the said petition and prayed for condonation of 12 years and 158 days delay in preferring such restoration application. However, a Single Judge Bench of this Court through an impugned order declined the plea. Consequently, it was presented the Apex Court

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

The Counsel for the State submitted that the appellants were entitled to the condonation of 12 years and 158 days delay in accordance with the merits of the case. In light of the fact, that that the suit property being under the ownership of the Union of India and the same held by the respondent on old grant lease, he emphasized that it shall not permit the respondent in his capacity as a private party to deprive the Government of its land after having admitting that the super structure alone belongs to him and not the land.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

The Counsel submitted that the High Court was correct in passing the impugned order and contended that there was no sufficient ground to grant condonation for such a long and inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. Thereby, he contended that there is no merit in entertaining the present plea.

Issue – Whether the High Court has committed erred in passing the impugned order and are the appellants entitled to condonation for the delay in filing the restoration application?

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court on perusal of the materials on record highlighted the suggestion given by this Court to the appellants. It stated that if the possession of the suit property is handed over to the respondent, then the Court might consider the restoration of the petition, despite of a long and inordinate delay. But however, non-compliance on the same led to the dismissal of appellants’ plea. It noted that the fact whether the litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India is irrelevant when condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. The Court asserted that while considering the plea for condonation of delay it must first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. Further, it stated that only if there sufficient cause established by the litigant and is equally balanced between the parties the court might proceed with the merits of the matter.

It noted that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration and should be based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity thus, cannot be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. The Court further, referring to various authorities noted that the High Court has not erred in passing the impugned judgement. It held that the appellants have failed to satisfy the vital test for condoning the delay and hence, stated that the same cannot be allowed as a matter of generosity. Accordingly, it dismissed the instant appeals. The Court through the Judgment has laid down a clear cut legal framework on allowing for condonation of delay and reiterated the settled law of bonfide explanation in seeking the same.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

When the appellant himself has admitted to parting with the possession of property, it is not necessary to prove it in Court: Gujarat High Court

Blog , ,

Kiran Ramanlal Inamdar vs Gujarat Housing Board on 4 May, 2023

Bench: Honourable Justice Rajendra M. Sareen

R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 104 of 2023

By way of this appeal, the appellant – original plaintiff challenged the judgement and decree passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Surat upholding the judgement and decree dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.

Facts

The appellant – plaintiff was appointed as a Junior Clerk in Gujarat Housing Board, and was allotted residential premises.

The appellant filed a suit against the respondents- original defendants seeking declaration of transfer of ownership rights with respect to the suit premises in his favour and further sought permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, upon adducing the evidence, the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and decree passed, the appellant – original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Surat which came to be dismissed by the judgement and decree

The appellant then preferred a second appeal whereby the Court  quashed and set aside the judgement and decree passed by the first appellate court and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the matter afresh and also directed the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the suit property.

Thereafter, on remand, the matter was heard and the learned 3rd Additional District Judge Surat dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the judgement and order passed

It is against the aforesaid judgement and decree passed by the first appellate court on remand, that the appellant has preferred the present Second Appeal.

The advocate for the appellant contended that the learned first appellate court overlooked crucial procedures where it failed to consider the proof of the contents of the document presented before it and that a mere exhibition of the documents in Court does not prove the contents

On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondents submitted that in the entire plaint, it was never the case of the plaintiff that they were not residing in the premises in question, but when the defence was filed by the defendants – Gujarat Housing Board contending that the premises in question was sub-let to a third party, the appellant – plaintiff came out with a case of permissive user who was taking care of the property on behalf of the appellant.

Judgement

The Court, having heard both sides affirmed the statement of the appellant’s advocate and held that the contents of the documents are required to be proved and established and mere exhibition of the document is not valid proof. However, in this case, the appellant himself has agrred that he has parted with the possession of the suit property to the third person as a care taker and said plea of the defendant Board that the appellant had parted with the possession is admitted by him and therefore, the letter addressed by the Estate Officer to the Gujarat Housing Board is not required to be exhibited. The said case of the defendant Board is proved and established on admission of the appellant that he had parted with the possession of the suit property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the court is erroneous or perverse.

The High Court held that the subordinate courts had rightly decided the issue between the parties in the most accurate perspective and hence dismissed the appeal

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”