CHARAN SINGH ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.

CHARAN SINGH ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.

Appellants, being inducted into possession and improving nazool land under Government policy for Scheduled Castes, have their possession protected and are entitled to assignment and regularisation of the land according to official policy; eviction was not justified in law given the equity and constitutional mandate for social justice and protection against exploitation of weaker sections.

Parties
Appellant: Charan Singh; Respondents: State of Punjab and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Decision of High Court in C.w.p. No. 171 of 1985
Outcome
Appeals disposed of. Contempt petition dismissed. No costs.
Legal Topics
Nazool Land Rules, Scheduled Castes Welfare, Eviction Proceedings, Regularisation of Possession, Directive Principles of State Policy
Constitutional Law Property Law Social Justice Nazool Land Rules Scheduled Castes Welfare Eviction Proceedings Regularisation of Possession Directive Principles of State Policy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charan Singh

Appellant

State of Punjab and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Decision of High Court in C.w.p. No. 171 of 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Government was justified in taking eviction proceedings against the appellants who were Scheduled Castes lessees of nazool land after expiry of lease.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' possession ought to have been regularised in accordance with the Government policy and Nazool Land Rules, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants, being inducted into possession and improving nazool land under Government policy for Scheduled Castes, have their possession protected and are entitled to assignment and regularisation of the land according to official policy; eviction was not justified in law given the equity and constitutional mandate for social justice and protection against exploitation of weaker sections.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of. Contempt petition dismissed. No costs.

Orders

  • Appellants directed to apply for regularisation of possession within four weeks to competent authority.
  • Authorities directed to regularise possession imposing necessary conditions and restrictions.