In a challenging legal case revolving around disputed land ownership, the court’s thorough legal analysis played a pivotal role in unraveling complexities related to property law. The case delves into the intricacies of land transfer procedures, ownership claims, and the validity of previous decisions. Stay tuned to explore how the court navigates through conflicting claims and counterclaims to reach a conclusive verdict.
Facts
- The suit claimed declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the defendants.
- The Gram Sabha Milawali proposed construction of a playground on the disputed land.
- The disputed land is government land, and the Gram Panchayat proposed its reservation for public use.
- The title of the disputed land was transferred to Dilip Singh by the competent officer.
- Appeal challenges the High Court order in a review petition filed by respondent no.1.
- A Case was filed by the legal representatives of Dilip Singh stating ownership and possession of the disputed land.
- The Gram Panchayat was threatening to use the land for construction purposes.
- Late Dilip Singh is accused of getting a forged entry done in Khasara for the disputed land.
- The proposal for the land was sent to the Collector based on the claimed ownership.
- Defendant No.2 denied the plaintiff’s claims, stating the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat.
- The defendants maintained that Late Dilip Singh was never the owner of the disputed land.
- The Khasara of 2003-2004 mentioned the disputed land as government land.
- Respondent no.1 filed First Appeal No.227 of 2011
- The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 18.07.2013
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Issue
- The Trial Court considered the issues related to the ownership and possession of the disputed land in Survey No. 11 and Survey No. 12.
- It was determined that the plaintiffs are lawful and valid owners of the disputed land in question.
- The defendants were accused of trying to have unlawful possession by constructing a School on the disputed land.
- The plaintiffs were confirmed to be the owners and possession holders of the disputed land in Survey No. 11 (7 Bigha 9 Biswa) and Survey No. 12 (2 Bigha 14 Biswa) located in village Milawali.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The disputed land was initially recorded in the name of the Government of Madhya Pradesh in revenue records but was later transferred to Dilip Singh by the Government.
- Dilip Singh remained in possession of the land during his lifetime, and after his death, his legal heirs filed a suit against the government to claim their title over the land.
- The order dated 31/08/2001 allegedly transferred the land to the appellant, but no valid agreement was produced to support this claim.
- The High Court observed discrepancies in the procedure followed for the land transfer to Dilip Singh, indicating that his name was only temporarily entered in the revenue records.
- Subsequent legal proceedings and suits involved claims and counterclaims regarding the ownership and transfer of the disputed land.
- Review petitions were filed citing the absence of crucial documents and questioning the validity of the previous decisions.
- The Trial Court ultimately concluded that the disputed land did not belong to the Government of Madhya Pradesh and that the plaintiffs, as legal heirs of Dilip Singh, were the rightful owners.
- The High Court’s exercise in the present matter amounted to reopening issues on merits
- This was not within the High Court’s review jurisdiction
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Appeal allowed and order of High Court set aside
- Suit of the Plaintiff rejected and dismissed
- Decree passed rejecting the suit
Case Title: HARWANSH KAUR Vs. SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (COUNTER MAGNET) GWALIOR (2021 INSC 662)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006424-006424 / 2021
