Even When Proven Guilty of Illegally Holding Land, Indicted Has To Be Removed Through Process Laid by Law: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Must Read

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Follow us

In the case of Bal Mukund Sharma v Divisional Forest Officer and Anr., the Petitioner accused the Respondent of acquiring Petitioner’s ancestral property. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent then tried to throw him out illegally. However, the Respondent claimed that the Petitioner is holding the land illegally and was conducting construction on it. Thus, actions were taken to stop it. The court held that the petitioner cannot be thrown out except per the law.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent intended to acquire his ancestral land from him. The Petitioner has owned the said land since 1952-53. The Respondent further tried to throw him out of the land without any lawful procedure. The Petitioner contended that the Respondent cannot throw him out or dispossess of his land.  

Therefore, the Petitioner filed the instant petition. Through the petition, the Petitioner prayed to the court to issue a relevant/mandamus writ or order. The Petitioner first, prayed before the court to restrain the Respondent from taking any action against the land of the Petitioner without following the process laid down by the law. Second, the Petitioner prayed that an order is passed, not interrupting his ownership and possession of the property. Third, to simultaneously prohibit the Respondent from taking his land away from him.

However, the Respondent claimed that the Petitioner is not the owner of the land. Further, the Respondent claimed the Petitioner is illegally holding the land.  

Arguments Made in the Court

The Petitioner prayed that proceedings under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act should be conducted. 

The Respondent contended that the petitioner did not provide any evidence to confirm his assertion that the property was owned by him. The Respondent further stated that land claimed by the Petitioner to be his belongs to the Department of Forest, Government of Himachal Pradesh.

Further, in the case filed to settle the dispute regarding the ownership of the land, the Petitioner was found to be illegally holding the land. Moreover, it was argued that the Petitioner was trying to build a house there. Hence, the Respondent took action to stop it, as no case of encroachment was pending against the Petitioner. To this end, as no encroachment petition was pending, the Petitioner could not be banished from the property. 

Observations Made by the Court

The Court observed that the person possessing/owning the land cannot be thrown out, except by the procedure laid down by the law. 

To support their observation, the Court referred to a precedent which dealt with a similar matter. The Court quoted the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors v. Manjit Kaur and Ors, (2019) 8 SCC 729. It held that ” that a person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years’ period of adverse possession is over, even owner’s right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right”

Judgment Given by the Court

Based on the aforementioned statements, the Court allowed the petition. The Respondent was restrained from taking any coercive action in furtherance of coercing the Petitioner out of the disputed land.  

Click here to read the Judgment


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -