Case law · न्यायिक निर्णय
The judgments that set the rules
Benchmark decisions of the Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court that decide how land is transferred, who inherits it, what possession can become, and what a master plan protects — each summarised in plain language and linked to the lessons it anchors.
The 8 entries
8 निर्णय
Each entry gives the citation, what the case was about, what the Court held, why it matters to someone working in land, and — the section most summaries leave out — the limits and qualifications that stop the holding being applied more widely than it should be.
- Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd v. State of Haryana(2012) 1 SCC 656 · 11 October 2011
Sale by power of attorney, agreement and will does not convey title to immovable property.
Transfer and title - Jagpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others(2011) 11 SCC 396 · 28 January 2011
Village common land cannot pass into private hands by encroachment, and long unauthorised occupation is not to be regularised as a matter of course.
Common land and government land - Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika v. State of Rajasthan & Others2017 (2) RLW 1178 (Raj) · 12 January 2017
A master plan is not a document authorities may depart from at convenience; land use designated in it, including ecological zones and common land, is protected.
Master plans and land use - Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others(2020) 9 SCC 1 · 11 August 2020
Daughters are coparceners by birth in Hindu joint family property, whether or not the father was alive on 9 September 2005.
Succession and heirs - Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Others v. Manjit Kaur & Others(2019) 8 SCC 729 · 2019
A person who has perfected title by adverse possession may use it to claim, not only to defend.
Adverse possession - State of Haryana & Others v. Mukesh Kumar & Others(2011) 10 SCC 404 · 2011
The State cannot perfect title over a citizen's land by pleading adverse possession.
Adverse possession - Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others(2020) 2 SCC 569 · 2020
Taking a citizen's land for a public work without acquisition and without compensation violates the constitutional right to property, and the State cannot plead adverse possession or delay to escape it.
Acquisition and constitutional right to property - Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu GoyalSupreme Court of India, 2026 — reported citation to be confirmed · 2026
A tenant cannot become the owner of the tenanted property by adverse possession, however long the occupation.
Adverse possession and tenancy
How this library is maintained
इसे कैसे संभाला जाता है
- Every entry carries a version number and the date it was written.
- Every entry states its review status plainly. Nothing is marked reviewed until an advocate has read it.
- Every entry has a limits and qualifications section. A holding without its qualifications is how people misuse case law.
- Every entry carries a corrections route and a how to cite block that tells you to cite the judgment rather than this page.
- Where a citation is uncertain or a decision is recent, the entry says so rather than presenting a clean-looking reference.
This is deliberately more scaffolding than a summary page normally carries. Case law is the one kind of content here where being wrong causes real harm, and a reference work that cannot be corrected is not a reference work.
Corrections
Accuracy in this section matters more than volume. If any entry is wrong, incomplete, or has been overtaken by a later decision, tell us and we will correct it and record the change. Message +91 92502 13833 on WhatsApp or write to support@agrizameen.com, quoting the entry version.