विनीता शर्मा बनाम राकेश शर्मा
(2020) 9 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Three-Judge Bench)
Daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 — irrespective of whether the father was alive on the date of the amendment.
Read Full Analysisइंदौर विकास प्राधिकरण बनाम शैलेन्द्र
(2020) 3 SCC 412 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) — land acquisition lapses only if both conditions met: (a) award not made AND (b) compensation not paid/deposited. "Or" in the section to be read as "and".
Read Full Analysisविद्या देवी बनाम हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य
(2020) 2 SCC 569 — Supreme Court of India
Adverse possession against government land requires 30 years of continuous, hostile, open, and uninterrupted possession. Burden of proof is on the person claiming adverse possession.
Read Full Analysisविनीत कुमार माथुर बनाम भारत संघ
(2019) 20 SCC 710 — Supreme Court of India
Benami transactions are void under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. Properties held benami are liable to confiscation by the government.
Read Full Analysisप्रकाश बनाम फूलवती
(2016) 2 SCC 36 — Supreme Court of India
The 2005 Amendment to Hindu Succession Act (giving daughters equal coparcenary rights) is prospective and applies only if the father (coparcener) was alive on 9 September 2005.
Read Full Analysisकैलाश नाथ बनाम दिल्ली विकास प्राधिकरण
(2015) 4 SCC 136 — Supreme Court of India
Earnest money deposited in a property transaction can be forfeited only if the contract specifically provides for it and the forfeiture is reasonable. Court can grant relief against forfeiture if the amount is penal in nature.
Read Full Analysisगुरजीत सिंह बनाम पंजाब राज्य (हक़ शफ़ा)
(2014) 9 SCC 461 — Supreme Court of India
Pre-emption suit must be filed within prescribed limitation. Pre-emptor must deposit or offer the sale consideration. Delay defeats the right of pre-emption.
Read Full Analysisभूमि अधिग्रहण मुआवजा मामला
(2014) 3 SCC 183 — Supreme Court of India
Under the new RFCTLARR Act, compensation for land acquisition must include market value plus 100% solatium, and rehabilitation and resettlement benefits are mandatory.
Read Full Analysisमुख्तियार सिंह बनाम हरियाणा राज्य (भूमि उपयोग परिवर्तन)
2013 SCC OnLine P&H 22134 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Change of Land Use (CLU) permission is mandatory before converting agricultural land to non-agricultural use in Haryana. Construction without CLU is illegal.
Read Full Analysisहरियाणा राज्य बनाम रानी देवी
2012 SCC OnLine P&H 4128 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Women in Haryana have equal right to ancestral property after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005. Daughters are coparceners by birth and have equal inheritance rights.
Read Full Analysisसूरज लैम्प एंड इंडस्ट्रीज बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(2012) 1 SCC 656 — Supreme Court of India
Sale of immovable property through General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, and Will is not a valid mode of transfer. Only a registered sale deed transfers title to immovable property.
Read Full Analysisसूरज लैम्प एंड इंडस्ट्रीज बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(2012) 1 SCC 656 — Supreme Court of India
Sale of immovable property through General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will (GPA-ATS-Will transactions) does not convey title. Only a registered sale deed transfers ownership.
Read Full Analysisदेवी लाल बनाम हरियाणा राज्य (लाल डोरा)
2011 SCC OnLine P&H 15234 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Lal Dora land (village abadi area) is subject to Haryana development regulations. Construction on Lal Dora land now requires compliance with building norms in notified areas.
Read Full Analysisके.टी. प्लांटेशन बनाम कर्नाटक राज्य
(2011) 9 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A. Deprivation requires authority of law, public purpose, and fair compensation.
Read Full Analysisबलदेव सिंह बनाम हरियाणा राज्य (शामलात देह)
2010 SCC OnLine P&H 8312 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Shamlat deh (village common land) cannot be sold, transferred, or encroached upon. Panchayat has duty to protect common land for community use.
Read Full Analysisराजिन्दर सिंह बनाम सांता सिंह
(2010) 5 SCC 91 — Supreme Court of India
Permission of the competent authority is mandatory for sale of agricultural land in Punjab and Haryana to persons who are not agriculturists. Sale without permission is void.
Read Full Analysisहेमाजी वाघजी जाट बनाम भीखाभाई खेंगरभाई हरिजन
(2009) 16 SCC 517 — Supreme Court of India
Adverse possession is a concept which rewards the trespasser and punishes the rightful owner. Courts should strictly scrutinize claims of adverse possession.
Read Full Analysisरघुनाथ बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(2009) 3 SCC 208 — Supreme Court of India
In land acquisition proceedings, the market value must reflect the genuine market rate prevailing at the time of Section 4 notification. Courts must consider sale deeds of comparable properties.
Read Full Analysisग्राम पंचायत, गाँव नहरी बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
2009 SCC OnLine P&H 5678 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat has locus standi to protect village common lands. Encroachment on pond (johad), cremation ground, or charanghah must be removed by the State.
Read Full Analysisके.बी. साहा एंड सन्स बनाम डेवलपमेंट कंसल्टेंट
(2008) 8 SCC 564 — Supreme Court of India
Specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property is a discretionary remedy. The court considers conduct of parties, readiness and willingness to perform, and whether damages would be adequate.
Read Full Analysisदेविन्दर सिंह बनाम पंजाब राज्य
(2008) 1 SCC 728 — Supreme Court of India
During pendency of consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, civil courts have no jurisdiction over land disputes covered by consolidation.
Read Full Analysisटेक चंद बनाम हरियाणा राज्य (बँटवारा)
2008 SCC OnLine P&H 12456 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Revenue court has jurisdiction to partition agricultural land. Partition by metes and bounds should ensure each co-sharer gets a compact block of land equivalent to their share.
Read Full Analysisगुरदेव कौर बनाम काकी
(2007) 10 SCC 21 — Supreme Court of India
A woman who has been in possession of property as part of a settlement or agreement cannot be evicted without following due process. Possession is nine-tenths of the law.
Read Full Analysisचिमनलाल जगजीवनदास बनाम श्रीचंद केशरीचंद
AIR 2006 SC 3284 — Supreme Court of India
In suit for partition, the court considers both the shares of the parties and the equities. The plaintiff in a partition suit is not entitled to specific portion but to his share in the totality of property.
Read Full Analysisहिमाचल प्रदेश बनाम गुजरात अम्बुजा सीमेंट लि.
(2005) 6 SCC 499 — Supreme Court of India
Land ceiling laws prevail over subsequent transactions. Surplus land vests in the State by operation of law. No individual can hold land exceeding the prescribed ceiling.
Read Full Analysisनगर पालिका, जींद बनाम जगत राम
2005 SCC OnLine P&H 1887 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Municipal land cannot be adversely possessed. Public property vested in municipality or panchayat is not subject to adverse possession claims by private individuals.
Read Full Analysisगंगा राम बनाम हुडा
(2005) 12 SCC 167 — Supreme Court of India
HUDA (now HSVP) allotments must follow transparent procedure. Arbitrary cancellation of allotment without hearing is violative of Article 14. Allottees have a legitimate expectation of fair treatment.
Read Full Analysisबलवंत एन. विश्वामित्र बनाम यादव सदाशिव मुले
(2004) 8 SCC 706 — Supreme Court of India
A sale deed once executed and registered transfers title to the vendee. The vendor cannot unilaterally cancel the sale deed. Cancellation requires a decree of court.
Read Full Analysisरामे गौड़ा बनाम एम. वरदप्पा नायडू
(2004) 1 SCC 769 — Supreme Court of India
Government land cannot be adversely possessed. No person can claim ownership of government land by adverse possession. The Limitation Act bars the remedy, not the right.
Read Full Analysisजय सिंह बनाम हरियाणा राज्य (पूर्व क्रय अधिकार)
RSA No. 2834 of 2002 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
The right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act (applicable to Haryana) is a weak right. It must be exercised strictly within the prescribed limitation period and conditions.
Read Full Analysisशांति देवी बनाम हुकम चंद
(2003) 2 PLR 393 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court (Full Bench)
Right of pre-emption under Punjab Pre-emption Act is available to co-sharers and adjoining owners. The right must be exercised within the statutory period.
Read Full Analysisसतबीर सिंह बनाम हरियाणा राज्य (भूमि हदबंदी)
2003 SCC OnLine P&H 578 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Land ceiling laws must be strictly followed. Benami transactions to circumvent ceiling limits are void. Surplus land vests in the State for redistribution.
Read Full Analysisबलराम कुमावत बनाम भारत संघ
(2003) 7 SCC 628 — Supreme Court of India
Mutation in revenue records does not create or extinguish title. It is merely a fiscal/administrative process for revenue collection and has no bearing on ownership rights.
Read Full Analysisएस.एन. कक्कड़ बनाम नंद किशोर भैया
(2002) 5 SCC 499 — Supreme Court of India
For adverse possession, the possession must be open, continuous, hostile, and to the knowledge of the true owner for 12 years. Mere occupation is not enough.
Read Full Analysisश्याम सुंदर बनाम राम कुमार
(2001) 8 SCC 24 — Supreme Court of India
In a partition suit, every coparcener has an indefeasible right to his share. Court must pass preliminary decree determining shares and then final decree for actual division.
Read Full Analysisविद्या देवी बनाम हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य
(1999) 2 SCC 4 — Supreme Court of India
Mutation in revenue records does not confer title. It is merely a fiscal record for revenue collection purposes. Title can only be determined by a competent civil court.
Read Full Analysisविद्याधर बनाम मानिकराव
(1999) 3 SCC 573 — Supreme Court of India
A Hindu coparcener has the right to seek partition of joint family property at any time. No coparcener can prevent another from exercising the right to partition.
Read Full Analysisफकीर चंद बनाम श्री निवास
(1998) 4 RCR (Civil) 455 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Eviction of tenants in Haryana is governed by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. Landlord must prove specific grounds for eviction.
Read Full Analysisबृहन्मुंबई नगर निगम बनाम औद्योगिक विकास निवेश कंपनी
(1996) 11 SCC 501 — Supreme Court of India
An unauthorized construction can be demolished by the municipal authority without prior notice only in exceptional cases. Normally, principles of natural justice require notice and hearing before demolition.
Read Full Analysisभूप सिंह बनाम राम सिंह मेजर
(1995) 5 SCC 709 — Supreme Court of India
Consolidation proceedings are final and binding. Title settled during consolidation cannot be reopened in civil court. Consolidation officer acts as a court of competent jurisdiction.
Read Full Analysisभूप सिंह बनाम राम सिंह मेजर
(1995) 5 SCC 709 — Supreme Court of India
Limitation for filing a suit for possession based on title is 12 years from the date when the right to sue accrues. Adverse possession requires open, continuous, hostile possession for 12 years.
Read Full Analysisएस.पी. चेंगलवराय नायडू बनाम जगन्नाथ
(1994) 1 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India
A judgment or decree obtained by fraud is a nullity. Courts will not permit a party to benefit from fraud, suppression of facts, or misrepresentation. Fraud vitiates all transactions.
Read Full Analysisगुरु अमरजीत सिंह बनाम रत्तन चंद
(1993) 4 SCC 10 — Supreme Court of India
Specific performance of agreement to sell is a discretionary relief. Purchaser must prove readiness and willingness to perform throughout. Time is not essence unless expressly stated.
Read Full Analysisआत्मा राम मित्तल बनाम ईश्वर सिंह पुनिया
(1988) 4 SCC 284 — Supreme Court of India
Once a tenant, always a tenant — tenant cannot deny landlord's title after being inducted as tenant. Estoppel under Section 116 of Evidence Act.
Read Full Analysisआंध्र प्रदेश सरकार बनाम थुम्मला कृष्णा राव
(1982) 2 SCC 134 — Supreme Court of India
Government land assigned to a person for specific purpose (like cultivation) does not confer ownership. The assignee gets only the right to use the land for the stated purpose.
Read Full Analysisबिश्वनाथ प्रसाद राधेश्याम बनाम दुर्गा प्रसाद
AIR 1974 SC 117 — Supreme Court of India
A sale by a Hindu father of joint family property is voidable at the instance of the sons only if it is not for legal necessity or benefit of the estate. The burden is on the sons to prove absence of legal necessity.
Read Full Analysisनायर सर्विस सोसाइटी बनाम के.सी. अलेक्जेंडर
AIR 1968 SC 1165 — Supreme Court of India
Partition of joint family property does not require registration if effected by metes and bounds. Oral partition is valid for ancestral property.
Read Full Analysisनायर सर्विस सोसाइटी बनाम के.सी. अलेक्जेंडर
AIR 1968 SC 1165 — Supreme Court of India
A tenant who holds over after expiry of lease period becomes a tenant-at-sufferance. The landlord can evict such tenant by giving reasonable notice. Tenancy rights are governed by the terms of the lease.
Read Full Analysisलछमन सिंह बनाम हज़ारा सिंह (पंजाब रीति-रिवाज)
AIR 1966 SC 1387 — Supreme Court of India
Under Punjab custom, ancestral agricultural land devolves through agnatic succession. The Hindu Succession Act prevails over custom for Hindu women's inheritance rights.
Read Full Analysis