Supreme Court overturns High Court in land dispute case: The Tehsildar vs. Ganga Bai (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 121

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal. The judgment was authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Can a person claim ownership of land based on a lease from a Gram Panchayat, especially when the land is officially recorded as government property? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a series of appeals concerning land disputes in Rajasthan. The core issue revolved around whether a suit for permanent injunction can be maintained without a declaration of ownership when the title is disputed. The court examined the validity of lease deeds granted by a Gram Panchayat and the requirement for proving title in such cases.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit filed by Ganga Bai Menariya and others (respondents) on May 10, 1999, seeking a permanent injunction and claiming ownership and possession of a piece of land. The respondents asserted that they had purchased the land from Panchayat Titardi on December 13, 1959, and had constructed a boundary wall in 1960. The suit was filed after the appellants issued a notice under Section 92A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, claiming the respondents had encroached on government land.

The appellants, The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and another, argued that the land was government land, specifically earmarked for grazing cattle (gochar land), and that the Gram Panchayat, Titardi, was not authorized to lease it. They also pointed out that the revenue records still showed the land as government property and that no mutation had been entered based on the alleged lease.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, ruling that the respondents were in illegal possession of the land and not entitled to an injunction. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, granting the injunction and holding that the suit was maintainable without a declaration of title. The High Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s judgment, stating that the allotment of land in 1959 was proven and the respondents were entitled to a permanent injunction without needing to seek a declaration of title.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, specifically Section 92A, which deals with notices to remove encroachments. The court also considered Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows for a presumption of truth for documents over 30 years old, but clarified that this presumption does not extend to the correctness of the recitals within the document. The Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, particularly Rule 266, was examined regarding the transfer of abadi land by private negotiation.

The relevant provisions are:

• ✓ Section 92A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959: This section empowers authorities to issue notices for the removal of encroachments on public land.
• ✓ Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states, “Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from proper custody, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.”
• ✓ Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961: This rule outlines the conditions under which a Panchayat can transfer abadi land by private negotiation. It states, “The Panchayat may transfer any abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation in the following cases: (a) Where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price; (b) where for reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the land; (c) where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• ✓ The appellants argued that the findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court were erroneous. They contended that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the legal position and evidence.
• ✓ They submitted that the land was government property, earmarked for grazing cattle, and the Gram Panchayat lacked the authority to lease it.
• ✓ They argued that the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable without a declaration of title, especially since the respondents’ claimed rights were based on a document that was not properly proven.
• ✓ The appellants stated that the Gram Panchayat, from which the respondents claimed their rights, was not made a party to the suit.
• ✓ The appellants contended that the lease in favor of the respondents was not proven by producing the original document or summoning the record from the Gram Panchayat.
• ✓ The appellants further argued that the Gram Panchayat had granted the lease in contravention of Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, which requires specific reasons for private negotiation of land sales.
• ✓ The appellants argued that the respondents were in illegal possession of the land, and notices were rightly issued for their eviction after following due process of law.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• ✓ The respondents argued that they had title to the property through a lease executed by the Gram Panchayat on December 13, 1959.
• ✓ They claimed that the land was transferred to the Urban Improvement Trust for expansion of abadi (residential area) and not as gochar land.
• ✓ They argued that the suit for permanent injunction was sufficient as they had title based on the lease, and there was no need for a declaration.
• ✓ The respondents submitted that the lease was proven by examining two witnesses who were members of the Gram Panchayat at the time of the lease.
• ✓ They claimed that the document was more than 30 years old, thus attracting the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• ✓ The respondents pointed to a State Government scheme from 2012 that regularized land possession prior to 1965, and that the appellants had transferred the land to the Municipal Council, thus having no claim over the land.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was right in upholding the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.
2. Whether a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when the title of the property is disputed.
3. Whether the respondents had proven their title to the land based on the lease deed.
4. Whether the Gram Panchayat had the competence to lease out the land in question.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The Supreme Court cited Union of India v. Brahim Uddin and another [(2012) 8 SCC 148]* to clarify that the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only applies to the genuineness of a document, not to the correctness of the recitals within it.
• ✓ The Supreme Court referred to Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and ors. [(2008) 4 SCC 594]* to reinforce that a suit for a simple injunction is not maintainable when the title of the property is disputed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the failure of the respondents to prove their title to the disputed land and the lack of competence of the Gram Panchayat to lease the land. The court emphasized that a simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when the title is disputed, and the plaintiff must prove their title. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed legal procedures for the transfer of land.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the respondents failed to prove the validity of the lease deed. The Court observed that the respondents did not summon the records of the Gram Panchayat to prove the document, nor did they implead the Gram Panchayat as a party to the suit. The Court also noted that the land in question was earmarked for grazing cattle, and the Gram Panchayat did not have the authority to lease it out. The Court also reasoned that the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable without a declaration of title, especially since the title of the property was disputed by the appellants. The court emphasized that when the title of the property is disputed, the plaintiff must first prove their title before seeking an injunction.

The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the document was more than 30 years old, thus attracting the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, clarifying that the presumption only applies to the genuineness of the document, not the correctness of its recitals. The Court also rejected the argument that the suit for permanent injunction was sufficient as they had title based on the lease, stating that when the title is disputed, a suit for permanent injunction without a declaration of title is not maintainable.

The Court also considered the arguments regarding the applicability of the State Government scheme for regularization of land possession prior to 1965. However, this was not the primary issue before the court and did not have a bearing on the court’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the judgment. There were no dissenting opinions.

“In the case in hand, the respondents claimed that they were given the land measuring 1330 square yards on lease by Gram Panchayat, Titardi on 13.12.1959.”

“The respondents -plaintiffs while filing the civil suit did not implead the Gram Panchayat as party. In such circumstances, the respondents -plaintiffs were required to prove the document as the competence of the Gram Panchayat to lease out the land itself was in question.”

“Further a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the property of the plaintiff/respondent was disputed by the appellants/defendants. In such a situation it was required for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the title of the property while praying for injunction.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable if the title of the property is disputed. The plaintiff must first establish their title through a declaration.
• ✓ A lease deed from a Gram Panchayat does not automatically confer title, especially if the Panchayat lacks the authority to lease the land.
• ✓ The presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only applies to the genuineness of the document, not to the correctness of its contents.
• ✓ It is crucial to implead all necessary parties in a suit, particularly if the claim is based on a document issued by that party.
• ✓ Proper procedures must be followed when transferring land, and any deviation can render the transfer invalid.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, restoring the decision of the Trial Court, thereby dismissing the suits filed by the respondents.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the title of the property is disputed, and the plaintiff must prove their title. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that a suit for injunction cannot be used to bypass the requirement of proving ownership when the title is contested. The court’s decision clarifies that the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not validate the contents of a document, and the party claiming rights under such a document must still prove its veracity and legality. This ruling reinforces the principle that mere possession is not enough to claim ownership or seek an injunction, especially when the title is disputed.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that the respondents failed to prove their title to the land and that the Gram Panchayat lacked the authority to lease it. The court emphasized that a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without a declaration of title when the title is disputed. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to legal procedures and establishing clear ownership before seeking injunctive relief. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the suits filed by the respondents.