9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and possession of the disputed land. 2. Validity and reliability of the demarcation report. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements for boundary disputes. 4. Entitlement to a decree for permanent injunction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership and Possession of the Disputed Land: The primary issue revolved around whether the plaintiffs were the rightful owners and possessors of the residential houses in question, alleged to be situated in Khasra No. 48/7, Village Humayunpur. The plaintiffs claimed possession of the land and sought a permanent injunction against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to prevent demolition. The DDA contested this claim, asserting that the plaintiffs had encroached upon land falling in Khasra No. 48/5, which had been acquired by the government. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish ownership or possession of the disputed land in Khasra No. 48/7, as the evidence presented was inconclusive and contradictory. 2. Validity and Reliability of the Demarcation Report: The demarcation report prepared by the Patwari was a crucial piece of evidence. The report stated that the houses fell in Khasra No. 48/7, but it was disregarded by the courts due to procedural lapses. The report failed to adhere to the Punjab High Court Rules, which require demarcation to be conducted from at least three permanent points. The absence of such points rendered the report unreliable. The courts found that the report was based on approximations rather than precise measurements, and thus, it could not be relied upon to determine the actual location of the suit land. 3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Boundary Disputes: The procedural requirements for resolving boundary disputes, as outlined in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and the Delhi High Court Rules, were not followed in the preparation of the demarcation report. The instructions mandate that demarcation should be conducted using permanent points, and the failure to do so was a significant factor in the courts' decision to disregard the report. The courts emphasized that adherence to these procedural guidelines is essential for the validity of any demarcation report in boundary disputes. 4. Entitlement to a Decree for Permanent Injunction: The plaintiffs sought a decree for permanent injunction based on their claim of ownership and possession of the land in Khasra No. 48/7. However, the courts concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide conclusive evidence to support their claim. The demarcation report, which was central to their argument, was deemed unreliable. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to prove their entitlement to the injunction, as they could not establish that the entire suit property, including both built-up and vacant land, fell within Khasra No. 48/7. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court reiterated that the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving their case and that the demarcation report, which was not prepared in compliance with the required procedures, could not be relied upon. The substantial question of law regarding the disregard of the Patwari's testimony, which was based on the flawed demarcation report, was resolved against the plaintiffs. The appeal and the pending application were dismissed, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction.
|
