A sale certificate for alleged excess land requires demarcation and proof of its existence.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 20 November 2025 in FDP No. 3/2007, by which the trial court rejected her application under Order XXI Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a sale certificate for alleged “excess land”.

The trial court found no excess land and noted that an earlier similar application had been rejected on 6 March 2024, an order that had attained finality.

The alleged excess area of 310.3 square feet had not been demarcated or supported by a sketch, plan, boundary fixation, or other relevant records.

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application for a sale certificate in respect of the alleged excess land

2. Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the absence of material establishing the existence and extent of the alleged excess land

Order XXI Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was the provision under which the petitioner sought a sale certificate.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; the Court considered whether the challenged order disclosed an error or infirmity warranting its interference.

The Court’s reasoning required material establishing the claimed land, including demarcation or supporting records, before granting relief concerning it.

The Court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s conclusion that the alleged excess land had not been established.

The petitioner had produced no demarcation, sketch, plan, boundary fixation, or other relevant record supporting the claim to 310.3 square feet.

The Court also noted that the earlier rejection of a similar application had attained finality.

In the absence of evidence establishing the alleged land, the Court found no error or infirmity in the impugned order warranting writ interference.

The trial court’s rejection of the application for a sale certificate therefore remained undisturbed.