Revenue Cases Pre-emption—Before granting relief of pre-emption to a registered sale deed, the Court has to be certain about the existence of superior right, a tenant claims September 26, 2020 phlaw
Revenue Cases Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.16–Revision–Delay in Filing-Financial Commissioner without condoning the delay in filing the revision has proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on the ground that petitioners have been proceeded against exparte February 16, 2020 phlaw
Revenue Cases Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Section 8(3), 9 and 12(3) – Determination of surplus land – Appellants were not bonafide purchasers, they have purchased the land from “M” vide Sale deed dated 14.06.1989 i.e. much after land stood vested in the State Government and after the Orders were passed by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner HELD Appeal dismissed January 28, 2020 phlaw
Revenue Cases [DIVISION BENCH] East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, S.42–Revision–Opportunity of being heard–Once the petitioner had executed a valid Vakalatnama/Power of Attorney when the matter was pending before the Assistant Director, Consolidation then petitioners cannot claim that he was not heard before the impugned order-Petition dismissed. December 30, 2019 phlaw
Revenue Cases Security of Land Tenures—A tenant/lessee of agricultural land cannot be ordered to be evicted by way of suit for mandatory injunction December 2, 2019 phlaw
Revenue Cases Village Common Land—Nature of Land—The judgment and decree on admission would not have binding effect and cannot be constructed against the revenue record December 1, 2019 phlaw
Revenue Cases Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953– Ownership Rights—Merely because of coming into force of the 1953 Act, petitioners would not become the owners of the land on which they were tenants—Held; Firstly, the entries have to be made in the revenue record and if that being not the position, then the jurisdiction with regard to the issue would be that of the Civil Courts. November 3, 2019 phlaw
Revenue Cases “….. since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question. “ October 18, 2019 phlaw
Revenue Cases “Marusi” would be an authorised occupant and “Gair Marusi” unauthorised-The Legislation in its wisdom has framed the Act for conferring the title of an occupant tenant and not unauthorised-It is also matter of law of common knowledge and equity March 30, 2019 phlaw
Revenue Cases Bhondedar—Mere possession would not entitle them to claim ownership rights—Claim dismissed December 11, 2018 phlaw
