Only civil courts can try land ownership or title disputes: Odisha HC
CUTTACK
: In a significant ruling, the
Orissa high court
has held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputes involving ownership or title to land, emphasising that such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts.
The vacation bench of Justice S K Panigrahi issued the order on May 30, setting aside an eviction order passed by the tehsildar of Dhamnagar under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972.
The case pertains to Dinabandhu Behera, who challenged the eviction proceedings initiated against him on the grounds that the state had erroneously recorded the disputed land in its name during the hal settlement. Behera claimed that his father had legally come into possession of the property after an 'ekpadia' (a written recognition) was issued by the ex-intermediary post-estate abolition. His father's name was subsequently recorded in the tenant ledger and rent was regularly paid to the govt. Upon his death, Behera came into possession of the land.
But, despite these records, the tehsildar initiated eviction proceedings treating Behera as an encroacher. The sub-collector and collector of Bhadrak later upheld the eviction order.
The HC, while setting aside all these orders, stated that the existence of a bona fide dispute over ownership and title renders summary eviction proceedings under the OPLE Act is inappropriate. "The revenue authorities, who conduct summary procedures, are not competent to adjudicate such complex disputes of title," Justice Panigrahi observed.
The court further noted that Behera had already approached the civil judge, junior division, Dhamnagar, seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land. He had also prayed for a declaration that the encroachment proceedings were unsustainable, given the pending civil suit.
Reaffirming the supremacy of civil courts in deciding title-related matters, the court ruled that "summary proceedings by revenue authorities cannot constitute the proper forum for adjudication where a bona fide dispute exists over title".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC refuses to quash FIR against ex-judge accused of raping minor daughter
Calling it 'shocking', the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to quash the criminal proceedings against a former judicial officer accused of sexually abusing his minor daughter. 'The daughter is making an allegation. It is a shocking case. He is a judicial officer and these are serious allegations of incest. This is shocking. And the daughter has made the allegations. She must have been scarred for life. How can this be a case for quashing?" a bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan asked. The bench, as a result, dismissed his appeal against a Bombay High Court passed on April 15, 2025, upholding the framing of charges by the trial court. The bench did not agree to the submissions that the judge was framed due to the long-standing matrimonial dispute with his estranged wife and the case was a 'counter blast' and lodged after his father died by suicide allegedly after being harassed by the complainant's side. 'We don't want to get into all this. Suicide may be because of the son's (judge) actions,' Justice Manmohan remarked. The counsel for the former judge said, 'This man's entire life has been ruined starting with his matrimonial problems." 'His father committed suicide. The complaint was made much later and was never mentioned during earlier legal proceedings,' the lawyer added. The bench, however, noted the serious allegations and charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against him. The case stems from an FIR registered on January 21, 2019, in Bhandara, Maharashtra after the alleged incidents of abuse taking place between May 2014 and 2018. It came on record that a chargesheet had been filed but formal charges were yet to be framed in the case. The former judge was charged under Section 354 of IPC for assaulting a woman with intent to outrage her modesty apart from Sections 7, 8, 9(l), 9(n), and 10 of the POCSO Act, relating to various forms of sexual assault, including aggravated and incestuous abuse. The plea alleged the complaint was made with malicious intent and the FIR was registered four years -- coinciding with an ongoing custody dispute and matrimonial litigation -- after the alleged events. The plea said the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act was improperly invoked, as no foundational facts had yet been established. With top court's refusal to quash the charges, the former judge is expected to stand trial in a special POCSO court.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Hisar court denies bail to YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra arrested on charges of ‘spying for Pakistan'
A court in Haryana's Hisar Wednesday denied bail to YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra who was arrested in May on charges of spying for Pakistan. Jyoti had filed the bail application on Tuesday, a day after her judicial custody was extended by two weeks till June 23. Jyoti's counsel Kumar Mukesh strongly objected to the sections imposed against her in the First Information Report (FIR). Her counsel contended in the court that the prosecution could not include any incriminating document or strong evidence which could prove her involvement in any spying network. The counsel also pointed out that Jyoti had gone to the Pakistani High Commission in 2023 and at the time, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act was not implemented but the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was in force. He argued that the FIR registered mentions section 152 of the BNS, which was section 124 A (sedition) under the IPC that the Supreme Court had kept it in abeyance, which is why the prosecution cannot make a case of 'waging war against the state' against Jyoti. The FIR also mentions section 3 (spying) and 5 (communicating secret information to unauthorised individuals) of the Official Secrets Act. Relying on a press release issued by the Hisar police which mentioned that they did not recover any military or policy-related or any sensitive information from her possession, her counsel demanded that the sections have no merit in the FIR and need to be dropped. The Hisar police had previously stated that no evidence had emerged indicating that Jyoti had access to any military or defence-related information, but claimed that she was in contact with some people aware that they were Pakistani intelligence operatives. The counsel said that one Harkirat Singh, a member of the Haryana Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, was also initially questioned along with Jyoti. Later, he was let off, but Jyoti was kept in custody. Her counsel contended that the FIR was registered against Jyoti based on her questioning on May 15. The entire FIR was based on Jyoti's version, which is not legally permissible. Her counsel added that the police could not place any substantial evidence on record that indicates her involvement in spying. However, the court rejected the defence counsel's pleas and denied bail to the accused. Jyoti was arrested from Hisar on spying charges on May 17. She stayed in police custody for nine days, after which she was sent to judicial custody on May 26. On June 9, she appeared before the court via video conference and her judicial custody was extended. Born in 1992, Jyoti, 33, was raised by her father Harish Malhotra and grandparents. She initially worked at a private firm in Gurgaon after which she became a travel blogger. After the Pahalgam terror attack, which resulted in the death of 26 Indian tourists, investigating agencies found that she was in constant touch with Ehsan-ur-Rahim alias Danish, a staffer at the Pakistani High Commission since November 2023. Probe agencies later arrested her on charges of spying for Pakistan. Danish was expelled on May 13 for allegedly indulging in espionage. Investigators claimed that Pakistani intelligence operatives were developing Jyoti as an asset.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Reform push: Insurance amendment bill heads to Parliament; changes to IBC, Companies Act will have to wait
NEW DELHI : The Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill, proposing sweeping reforms such as 100% foreign direct investment (FDI) and composite licensing, is likely to be tabled in the Monsoon Session of Parliament in July, three people aware of the plan said. However, amendments to clarify the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and changes to the Companies Act, 2023, are unlikely to make it to the coming session, the people said on the condition of anonymity. The Centre is also awaiting a Parliament select committee's views on the new Income Tax Bill, 2025, meant to simplify direct tax laws, expected in July, so that it can be introduced in the Winter Session of Parliament towards the end of November or early December, said one of the three people quoted above. The select committee, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's) Baijayant Panda, is expected to give its report on the first day of the monsoon session, likely to begin on 21 July. Insurance reforms The insurance amendment bill was slated for introduction in the Budget session, but got delayed as the finance ministry sought to add provisions on 100% FDI and the ease of operational considerations for foreign investors, requiring fresh vetting by the law ministry before cabinet approval. 'Several provisions of the bill required time for regulatory and industry readiness. It has now been finalized," the second person said, adding that the cabinet approval could come soon. The bill focuses on ensuring clarity and preparedness, said the third person. It will revise three key legislations—the Insurance Act, 1938, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) Act, 1956, and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Act, 1999—paving the way for greater autonomy for the insurance regulator and the LIC for appointments, office setup, and staffing. The comprehensive legislative structure will eliminate the need for future amendments to the LIC Act and related laws to enable composite licensing. Also read | To curb mis-selling, finance ministry tells lenders to stop incentives on insurance The bill proposes composite insurance licences with a higher capital threshold of ₹150 crore while retaining existing capital norms for insurance and reinsurance at ₹100 crore and ₹200 crore, respectively. A composite licence, already allowed in Singapore, Malaysia, and the UK, will allow a single insurer to offer both life and non-life products, currently permitted only through separate entities. Besides allowing 100% FDI, the bill simplifies operating conditions for foreign reinsurers by slashing the net-owned fund requirement from ₹5,000 crore to ₹1,000 crore. Queries emailed to spokespersons for the ministry of finance and corporate affairs on Tuesday remained unanswered. Experts believe the bill will deepen insurers' reach in underserved rural and semi-urban areas, making insurance more accessible with tailored, affordable products. It will also enhance firms' risk management capacity, speed up tech adoption, and grow their customer base, leading to a strong foundation for long-term sectoral growth. However, some industry executives have their reservations. Also read | The health insurance puzzle: 83% Indians aware but only 19% covered 'The reforms are well-intentioned. Well thought-out? Perhaps not. A 100% FDI for insurers will be welcome, but how many will bite remains to be seen. Even now, many foreign partners in joint ventures have not touched the current permissible 74%," said Balasundaram, secretary general, Insurance Brokers Association of India. 'As for composite licences, it is an uncharted area in India, and the outcomes are not easy to predict. Capital for serious insurers has never been an issue; so, the lowering of the minimum requirement does not really add value," he added. He said ease of operations for foreign entities sounds good on paper, but implementation and market conditions will decide whether it will work or not. In short, outcomes remain an act of crystal gazing as of now. Since 2000, when the insurance sector was opened to private players by gradually raising FDI limits from 26% to 74%, it has seen robust growth. Between 2014 and January 2024, while the number of insurers rose from 53 to 70, insurance penetration grew from 3.9% to 4%, and insurance density nearly doubled from $52 to $92. A flat 4% insurance penetration against the global average of 7% "means that while the insurance sector has expanded, the expansion has been in line with the broader economy and has not really outpaced it, which you would expect a sunrise sector to", said Narendra Ganpule, partner and national financial services advisory leader, professional services firm Grant Thornton Bharat. 'The need of the hour is revolutionary changes, which is what the bill attempts to bring about to propel India to achieve its espoused vision of 'Insurance for all by 2047'," he added. Also read | Heath insurance in India ought to cover preventive care as well Pavanjit Singh Dhingra, joint managing director, Prudent Insurance Brokers, echoed his views, saying the proposed changes will help attract the required capital, greater focus, and a wider distribution network, all of which are critical to deepening insurance penetration, especially in underserved and rural markets. The draft bill also empowers the insurance regulator to set relaxed licensing and capital requirements for smaller insurers or single-product entities, replacing the fixed capital clause with a more flexible, consultative framework. It introduces a differential licensing regime to support micro and niche insurers—with a minimum capital of ₹50 crore on a case-by-case basis—in serving low-income and rural populations. It also paves the way for captive insurers, allowing conglomerates to establish in-house insurers to manage group-level risks. In an earlier conference, M. Nagaraju, financial services secretary, had said the new insurance laws would attract global investors, foster competition, enhance product quality, improve customer service, and lower premiums, bringing India on par with economies like Canada, Brazil, Australia, and China. But C.R. Vijayan, former secretary general of the General Insurance Council, a representative body of general insurers, said though the reform measures signal a liberal investment climate, investors will judge it by the sector's long-term returns over a decade or more. 'Long-term returns entail higher risk for investors, especially given the potential impact of a change in government and its implications on investment policies." Corporate reforms While the IBC amendments under discussion mainly seek to clarify legislative provisions in light of certain judicial pronouncements and to make the law more efficient, the proposed Companies Act amendments are based on an expert committee's suggestions for modifying the regulatory framework for statutory auditors and improving the ease of doing business. Bankruptcy law experts said that while further legislative streamlining of the IBC is awaited, all stakeholders should strive for timely decision-making and ensure the sanctity of the debt resolution process. Also read | Indian insurtech startups look overseas as AI reshapes global insurance 'The stakeholders need to develop and follow the right practices in insolvency resolution processes. The regulatory authorities should honour the IBC principles and should not leverage their position as a regulator to recover the dues during the moratorium period," said Anoop Rawat, partner (Insolvency and Bankruptcy) at law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.
