Khasara entries do not convey title = Suit for declaration of title and injunction – trial court dismissed the suit as it belongs to Municipality /defendant – High court reversed the trial court order basing on revenue entries by saying that ” when the respondents- defendants did not produce property register to show that this property was ever recorded as property of the Municipal Corporation. At one stage it was recorded as Nazul land belonging to the State when the area had not come within the municipal limits. When the area came within the municipal limits it was mentioned to be Behatnam (under management) of the Municipal Corporation. But the possession and title of the plaintiffs has been recorded throughout even thereafter and to have established Abadi over this land, and therefore, the defendants-respondents could not object to the title and possession of the plaintiffs and the suit for declaration of title and injunction ought to have been decreed.” – Apex court set aside the judgment of High court and held that The High Court committed a grave and manifest error of law in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by simply placing reliance upon Khasaras entries even without properly appreciating the settled law that Khasara entries do not convey title of the suit property as the same is only relevant for the purposes of paying land revenue and it has nothing to do with ownership.=
The Original
Civil Suit No.44-A/1985 was filed by plaintiff-respondents against the
defendant- the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior seeking declaration that land
bearing Original Survey No.486/19 (old) (New Survey No.619) measuring 1
Bigha is owned and possessed by them. They also sought for permanent
injunction against the defendant on the ground that Municipal authorities
tried to interfere with their possession by dismantling the fencing
standing on their land.
3. The case of the plaintiffs was that their ancestors were the owners
of the suit land. One Ram Nath was the original tenure-holder (Mool
Krishak) and thereafter they became joint Bhumiswami. They claimed to be
in possession on the ground that they constructed fencing, Hauda (pond) and
Latrine (toilet) on the suit land.
4. By way of an amendment of paragraph 2 of the plaint the plaintiffs
had shown their pedigree.
5. Defendant – Municipal Corporation filed a written statement, denied
the allegations and asserted that the suit land is an open piece of land
belonging to the Corporation and is in its possession. It is reserved for
developing park and is used as a parking place and a sign Board to this
effect is placed at the spot and the fencing by wire too has been done by
Municipal Corporation. It was alleged that the plaintiffs manipulated
Khasara entries by committing fraud to include their names.=
The Trial court dismissed the suit holding that
In absence of notice under Section 401 of the M.P. Municipality Act, 1956
the suit is not maintainable.
The plaintiffs are not the owners of the
disputed land and the disputed land is the property within the continued
ownership and possession and management of the Municipality. =
the High Court by impugned judgment allowed the appeal
and set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court with the following
observation:
“38. That is the position in this case as well, when the respondents-
defendants did not produce property register to show that this property was
ever recorded as property of the Municipal Corporation. At one stage it was
recorded as Nazul land belonging to the State when the area had not come
within the municipal limits. When the area came within the municipal limits
it was mentioned to be Behatnam (under management) of the Municipal
Corporation. But the possession and title of the plaintiffs has been
recorded throughout even thereafter and to have established Abadi over this
land, and therefore, the defendants-respondents could not object to the
title and possession of the plaintiffs and the suit for declaration of
title and injunction ought to have been decreed.”=
Mutation entries do not confer title. In Smt. Sawarni v. Smt.Inder
Kaur & others, 1996 (6) SCC 223, this Court held :
“7…….Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or
extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables
the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in
question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in
coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title
in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire
judgment…….”
Merely on the basis of Khasara of the year Samvat
1992 Ex.P/10, Khasara of the year Samvat 1996 Ex.P/11, Khasara of the year
Samvat 2003 Ex.P/2 declaration has been given in favour of the plaintiffs.
The High Court also noticed the Khasara of the year Samvat 2004 Ex.P/3,
Samvat 2005 Ex.P/4 and Samvat 2006 Ex.P/5, and then Khasara of the years
Samvat 2010 to 2014 Ex.P/6, Khasara of the years Samvat 2013 to 2017 Ex.P/7
and Khasara of the years Samvat 2035 to 2038 Ex.P/8.
28. In the Khasara of the years Samvat 2035 to 2038 Ex.P/8 the nature of
the land was mentioned as Nazul Abadi. In such exhibit the Municipality has
been mentioned in column No.3. On the basis of aforesaid Khasaras, the
learned Single Judge decided the title in favour of the appellant-Municipal
Corporation.=
The High Court committed a grave and manifest error of law in
reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
by simply placing reliance upon Khasaras entries even without properly
appreciating the settled law that Khasara entries do not convey title of
the suit property as the same is only relevant for the purposes of paying
land revenue and it has nothing to do with ownership.
31. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil First Appeal No.1 of
1995 and confirm the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The
appeal is allowed. No costs.
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.