KARAM CHAND versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The appellant failed to establish with evidence that he was in cultivating possession of the land as a sub-lessee prior to 1.1.1956. Additionally, the revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act challenging the conveyance deed was time-barred, with no application or explanation for condonation of delay, making his claim unsustainable.
- Parties
- Appellant: Karam Chand; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Displaced Persons (compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, Limitation, Auction Sale, Sub Lessee Claims
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Karam Chand
Appellant
Union of India and Ors.
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was in cultivating possession of the land as a sub-lessee prior to 1.1.1956
- 2 Whether the revision petition under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 challenging the conveyance deed was barred by limitation
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to establish with evidence that he was in cultivating possession of the land as a sub-lessee prior to 1.1.1956. Additionally, the revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act challenging the conveyance deed was time-barred, with no application or explanation for condonation of delay, making his claim unsustainable.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment