SHAMBHU CHAUHAN vs RAM KIRPAL ALIAS CHIRKUT . — C.A. No. 3311/2017
Case under Land Laws, Agricultural Tenancy, Land Revenue : Revenue Laws of States, Including Preemption, Collection of Land Revenue, Mutations, Correction of Land Records, Etc Section III-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010024012012
Filing Date
18-Jan-2012
Registration No
C.A. No. 3311/2017
Diary Number
2401/2012
Order Date
21-Nov-2024
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2024 INSC 882
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 04-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHAMBHU CHAUHAN
Adv. SHYAMAL KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAM KIRPAL ALIAS CHIRKUT .
Adv. TULIKA MUKHERJEE[R-7] TULIKA MUKHERJEE[R-5.4] TULIKA MUKHERJEE[R-5.3] TULIKA MUKHERJEE[R-5.2] TULIKA MUKHERJEE[R-5.1] TULIKA MUKHERJEE[R-3] TULIKA MUKHERJEE[R-1] NIRANJANA SINGH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-3] NIRANJANA SINGH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-7] NIRANJANA SINGH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-5] ANURADHA & ASSOCIATES[R-6]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
21-Nov-2024
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Nov-2024
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Nov-2024
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
-
16-Oct-2024
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Oct-2024
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
-
26-Sep-2024
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
-
25-Sep-2024
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
-
29-Aug-2024
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
-
28-Aug-2024
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
-
30-May-2024
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-May-2024
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan
-
15-Sep-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Sep-2023
IA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar
-
14-May-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-May-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Feb-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Feb-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Aug-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Aug-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Jul-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Jul-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Mar-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Mar-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Jan-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Jan-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Nov-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Nov-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Aug-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Aug-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Jun-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Apr-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Apr-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Jan-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Oct-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Sep-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Jul-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Jan-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Aug-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Apr-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Feb-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Jan-2012
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 3311/2017
-
[ 2024 INSC 882 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
The Supreme Court dismissed Shambhu Chauhan's appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that set aside orders by lower consolidation authorities. The core dispute involved land ownership claims: Smt. Gulabi claimed to be the daughter of Aftee (deceased in 1959) and sought co-tenancy rights, but the Court found her evidence—primarily an unreliable birth register with factual inconsistencies and contradictory witness testimony—insufficient to establish paternity, especially given her 14-year delay in challenging the 1959 mutation order that transferred the land to respondent Ram Kirpal. The Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the Consolidation Officer's original decision was supported by evidence and the subsequent appellate and revisional authorities erred by reversing it based on perverse fact-finding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts