State Cannot Cancel Jamabandi Without Due Process, Property Rights Cannot Be Taken Away Summarily: Patna HC 

The Patna High Court quashed Bihar government proceedings cancelling old land records in Katihar and ordered restoration of disputed jamabandis. Justice Sourendra Pandey held that property rights cannot be taken away through summary action without due process and hearing affected parties.

Brother Cannot Claim Ouster Against Sister Merely by Mortgage & Mutation of Revenue Records: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court ruled that a brother cannot claim ouster or adverse possession against his sister merely by mutating revenue records or mortgaging family property, reaffirming that possession of one co-heir is presumed to be on behalf of all co-heirs.

Fake Court Busted in Ahmedabad; Conman Arrested for Impersonating Arbitrator For 5 years & Passed Order As ‘Judge’

Morris Samuel Christian was arrested in Gujarat for operating a fake tribunal and impersonating a judge for five years. He targeted individuals with land disputes, charging fees to issue bogus court orders. Authorities acted upon a complaint from a city civil court registrar, revealing Christian’s fraudulent activities and claiming he was an official arbitrator.

“Such Demolitions Against Rule Of Law. Like Bulldozing Laws Of Country”: Supreme Court On ‘Bulldozer Justice’

Today, On 12th September, The Supreme Court criticized the practice of demolishing properties as punishment, emphasizing that allegations of involvement in a crime do not justify such actions. It warned against undermining the rule of law and stressed the need for due legal process. The court issued a notice to the Gujarat government to respond and ruled against the demolition of a specific house.

Wakf Board Must Prove Title Over Private Claims; Revenue Record Entries Alone Not Enough: Karnataka HC

Karnataka High Court emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry before altering ownership records concerning private property. In a case involving disputed land, the court ruled in favor of a petitioner whose ownership claim was challenged by the Wakf Board. The court highlighted the burden of proof on the Board and directed a proper legal process for resolving the dispute.