Physical Possession of Land by Govt Auth by Panchnama


https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/14813/14813_2011_32_1502_21962_Judgement_06-May-2020.pdf
Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors.(1976) 1 SCC 700 (paragraph 28)
Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust vs. State of Punjab (1996) 4 SCC 212 (paragraph 4) and  Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. A. Viswam (Dead) by LRs. (1996) 8 SCC 259 (paragraph 9)
regarding the settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition.  
 Further, that the normal mode of taking possession is drafting the Panchnama in  the  presence of  Panchas  and  taking possession  and  giving delivery   to   the   beneficiaries   is   accepted   mode   of   taking possession of the land.   Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession   would   tantamount   only   to   illegal   or   unlawful possession.  Reliance is also placed on paragraphs 14 to 16 of  Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma (supra).  However, it is not necessary for
us to dilate on these aspects having agreed with the conclusion recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ
petition filed in the year 2001 by the appellants with limited relief of   questioning   the   Possession   Panchnama   dated   20.3.1986,
suffered from laches.   The Division Bench of the High Court noted that the learned single Judge completely glossed over this

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Registered Document is presumed to be valid unless otherwise proved

 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29674/29674_2019_34_1501_24672_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 8 (2006) 5 SCC 353 The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below: “27.  There   is   a   presumption   that   a   registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of  proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.  In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 "It has b...
Read more

Whether is was any reason explained to pass the order by authority

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...
Read more

Registration of Court Decree Mandatory or not

CA No.6835/2009 Titled Gurcharan Singh & Ors v/s Angrez Kaur & Ans dated 19.03.2020 held Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 709. In Bhoop Singh (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18:- “16. We have to view the reach of clause (vi), which is an exception to sub-section (1), bearing all the aforesaid in mind. We would think that the exception en grafted is meant to cover that decree or order of a court, including a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise, which declares the pre-existing right and does not by itself create new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or upwards. Any other view would find the mischief of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, embedded in the decree or order. 17. It would, therefore, be the duty of the court to examine in each case whether the parties have pre-existing right to the immovable property, or whe...
Read more