Supreme Court Upholds Land Encroachment Ruling: Rambhau Ganpati Nagpure vs. Ganesh Nathuji Warbe (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 September 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 933

Judges: Deepak Gupta, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a land owner claim possession of land based on a re-survey map prepared by revenue authorities, even if the order directing the map’s preparation is later set aside? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a land dispute case, clarifying the evidentiary value of such maps and the maintainability of civil suits in land encroachment matters. This case involves a dispute between two landowners over agricultural land where one party was found to have encroached upon the other’s property. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, affirming the plaintiffs’ right to possession. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

The case involves a land dispute between Rambhau Ganpati Nagpure (the appellant) and Ganesh Nathuji Warbe & Ors. (the respondents). Both parties owned adjacent agricultural lands in Mouza Sirsi. The respondents claimed their ancestral land measured 6.07 hectares, while the appellant’s land was 4.23 hectares. A resurvey in 1991 showed the appellant’s land as 5.3 hectares, an increase of 1.07 hectares. The respondents then approached the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), who ordered a re-measurement based on old records. The SDO’s order on 31.07.2000 directed the Taluka Land Inspector to correct the revenue records, restoring the original land positions. The respondents alleged that the appellant had erected wire fencing and encroached upon their land, leading them to file a suit for possession.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Civil Judge initially decreed the suit on 03.01.2005, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents) and ordering the defendant (appellant) to return the encroached land. The defendant appealed this order, but the District and Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on 03.05.2008. The appellant then filed a second appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which was also dismissed on 28.01.2009, on the grounds that no substantial question of law arose. The High Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff’s land.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the presumption of accuracy of maps or plans made by the authority of the government. The court examined whether the map prepared under the direction of the SDO was admissible as evidence.
  
  “83. Maps or plans made by authority of Government.—Maps or plans made by the authority of the Central Government or any State Government were made for the purposes of any public work, are presumed to be accurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate.”
• Section 138 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: This section pertains to the remedy of a civil suit against an order of ejectment. The court examined whether a civil suit was maintainable against the order of ejectment.
  
  “138. Suits against orders under this Chapter.—Subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, any party to a suit or proceeding under this Chapter, against whom an order has been made, may institute a suit in a Civil Court to have such order set aside or modified.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the map used as evidence was not proven in accordance with Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the civil suit was not maintainable under Section 138 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The appellant also contended that the boundary between the two fields was marked by trees, which was proven by evidence on record.

The respondents argued that the map was prepared by revenue authorities and therefore had evidentiary value. They also argued that Section 138 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, specifically allows for civil suits against orders of ejectment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the map was proved in accordance with Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
2. Whether the suit was maintainable under Section 138 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the map prepared by the revenue authorities had evidentiary value, even though the order directing its preparation was later set aside. The Court also held that the suit was maintainable under Section 138 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, as this section allows for civil suits against orders of ejectment.

The Court noted that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the increase in their land area from 4.23 hectares to 5.3 hectares. The court observed, “If there was a boundary with trees, how can that be replaced with a fence?” The Court further stated, “The only explanation given was that to straighten the boundary some land was exchanged with some relatives. No evidence was placed on record to prove this.” The court also said that, “In fact, Section 138 clearly provides that a civil suit can be instituted against any order of ejectment.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual findings of the lower courts, which established that the appellant had encroached upon the respondents’ land. The Court also emphasized the evidentiary value of the map prepared by the revenue authorities and the clear provision in Section 138 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, allowing for civil suits against orders of ejectment. The lack of a credible explanation from the appellant regarding the increase in their land area further solidified the Court’s view.

Key Takeaways

• Maps prepared by revenue authorities have evidentiary value, even if the order directing their preparation is later set aside.
• Section 138 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, allows for civil suits against orders of ejectment.
• Landowners must provide credible explanations for changes in their land area.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that maps prepared by revenue authorities hold evidentiary value, and civil suits are maintainable against orders of ejectment under Section 138 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. This judgment reinforces the importance of accurate land records and the right of landowners to seek legal recourse against encroachment. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts’ decisions that the appellant had encroached upon the respondents’ land. The Court affirmed the evidentiary value of maps prepared by revenue authorities and the maintainability of civil suits in such cases. This judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate land records and the right of landowners to seek legal recourse against encroachment.