Supreme Court clarifies procedure for recording possession in revenue records: Jagtar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (2018)

Date of the Judgment: February 2, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 79
Judges: Madan B. Lokur J., Deepak Gupta J.
Can a revenue official make changes to land records without informing all parties involved? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a dispute over land possession in Uttarakhand. The core issue revolved around whether a Supervisor Qanoongo (revenue official) could alter land records without proper notice to all legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that such changes cannot be made without due notice and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. The judgment was authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice Madan B. Lokur concurring.

Case Background

The case concerns a land dispute where the land was initially recorded in the possession of one Teja Singh in the revenue records. After Teja Singh’s death, the Supervisor Qanoongo, a revenue official, recorded Harbhajan Kaur (since deceased) as the possessor of the land. This change was made without informing Teja Singh’s sons, Jagir Singh and Karnail Singh, who were also legal heirs. Jagir Singh and Karnail Singh filed objections, claiming that they should have been recorded as the possessors of the land after their father’s death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The objections filed by Jagir Singh and Karnail Singh were initially dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. However, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, overturned this decision, directing that the names of Jagir Singh and Karnail Singh be recorded in the revenue records. This order was upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Supervisor Qanoongo could not have made the entries in favour of the appellants without proper notice. However, the High Court also directed that the names of both parties be removed from the revenue records, which was challenged in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Para 423 of the Land Records Manual, which authorizes the Supervisor Qanoongo to make entries of possession in the remarks column of the revenue record. However, this power is subject to the condition that such entries must be made after “full publicity” about the visit and after due notice to all parties concerned.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the Supervisor Qanoongo had the authority to record the possession of Harbhajan Kaur in the revenue records. They contended that the revenue entry was correctly made, and the High Court erred in directing the removal of their names from the records.

The respondents contended that the Supervisor Qanoongo did not follow the procedure laid down in Para 423 of the Land Records Manual. They argued that no public notice was given about the visit of the Supervisor Qanoongo, and no notice was given to the legal heirs of Teja Singh before recording the name of Harbhajan Kaur.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but addressed the core question of whether the Supervisor Qanoongo could make entries in the revenue records without giving public notice and without notice to the legal heirs of Teja Singh.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court referred to Para 423 of the Land Records Manual, which outlines the procedure for making entries in the revenue records.

Judgment

The Court held that the Supervisor Qanoongo could not have made entries in favour of the appellants without giving public notice and without giving notice to the legal heirs of Teja Singh. The Court agreed with the High Court’s finding on this point. However, it disagreed with the High Court’s direction that the names of both parties should be removed from the revenue records.

The Court observed that the core issue was to determine who was in legal possession of the land. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Supervisor Qanoongo to decide who is in legal possession of the land after hearing both sides.

The Court stated, “The dispute is as to which of the parties is in possession of the land. The High Court erred in directing that the names of both the parties should be removed. This could not have been done.”

The Court further stated, “Therefore, the direction of the High Court that the entry of possession cannot continue in favour of either of the parties is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Supervisor Qanoongo, who after hearing both the sides, shall decide as to who is in legal possession of the land in dispute and thereafter make relevant entry in the revenue records.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to the rules laid down in the Land Records Manual. The Court emphasized that any changes in revenue records, especially concerning possession, must be made after giving due notice and opportunity to all parties concerned. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the principle of natural justice, ensuring that no party is prejudiced by actions taken without their knowledge or participation.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Revenue officials must follow proper procedure when making changes to land records.
• ✓ Public notice and notice to all legal heirs are essential before recording changes in possession.
• ✓ The principle of natural justice must be followed to ensure fairness in revenue matters.
• ✓ The matter was remanded to the Supervisor Qanoongo to decide who is in legal possession of the land after hearing both sides.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the matter be remanded to the Supervisor Qanoongo, who shall decide as to who is in legal possession of the land in dispute after hearing both the sides and thereafter make relevant entry in the revenue records.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that any changes in revenue records, especially concerning possession, must be made after giving due notice and opportunity to all parties concerned. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice in revenue matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jagtar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand clarifies the procedure for recording possession in revenue records. The Court emphasized that revenue officials must follow proper procedure, including giving public notice and notice to all legal heirs, before making changes. The matter was remanded to the Supervisor Qanoongo to determine the legal possessor of the land after hearing both sides.

Category:
Revenue Law
  Land Records
    Procedure for Recording Possession
  Land Records Manual
    Para 423, Land Records Manual

FAQ

Q: Can a revenue official change land records without informing the concerned parties?
A: No, a revenue official cannot change land records, especially regarding possession, without giving proper public notice and notice to all legal heirs or concerned parties.

Q: What is the significance of Para 423 of the Land Records Manual?
A: Para 423 of the Land Records Manual outlines the procedure for making entries of possession in the revenue records. It mandates that such entries must be made after “full publicity” and after due notice to all parties concerned.

Q: What did the Supreme Court direct in this case?
A: The Supreme Court directed that the matter be remanded to the Supervisor Qanoongo, who shall decide as to who is in legal possession of the land in dispute after hearing both the sides and thereafter make relevant entry in the revenue records.

Q: What is the principle of natural justice that the Supreme Court emphasized?
A: The principle of natural justice means that no party should be prejudiced by actions taken without their knowledge or participation. In this case, it means that all legal heirs should be informed and given a chance to be heard before any changes are made to the land records.