//
you're reading...
legal issues

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.= MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR … APPELLANT VERSUS PURAN SINGH ALIAS PURAN CHAND & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41724

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.

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41724 – for full text – LAW FOR ALL

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,628,337 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,845 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com