Supreme Court Upholds Land Rights Based on Revenue Records: Dharam Singh vs. Prem Singh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 05 February 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 117

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a person claim ownership of land based on entries in revenue records, even if a competent authority has ordered the deletion of their name? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a land dispute case, clarifying the importance of accurate and legally sound revenue records. This case revolves around a dispute over agricultural land in Uttarakhand, where conflicting claims arose from entries in revenue records and orders for their correction. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a land dispute concerning agricultural land originally owned by one Badri Aswal in Village Gyansu, District Uttar Kashi. Badri Aswal’s wife, Tulsa Devi, inherited the land, and after her death, the land was treated as State property since she had no legal heirs. Amar Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, claimed to be looking after the affairs of one Bhopalu, who was allegedly adopted by Tulsa Devi, and continued to possess the land. However, Bhopalu’s name was never officially recorded in revenue records. Amar Singh continued to be in possession of the land even after Bhopalu’s death.

In 1956, the Collector of Tehri Garhwal ordered the release of Tulsa Devi’s land from Amar Singh’s possession, except for 4 Nali of land where his house and other structures were located. The government acquired land in the village for construction purposes and instead of paying compensation, the government gave land in exchange to those whose land was acquired. The land that was given in exchange was the land that was previously owned by Tulsa Devi. During record operations between 1952 and 1963, Amar Singh’s name was recorded in possession of some plots, including the disputed plot No. 719. However, this entry was later found to be surreptitious by the Assistant Record Officer (A.R.O.), who ordered the deletion of Amar Singh’s name from the records in 1961.

The Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960, came into force, which provided that occupants of land recorded in the last revision of records would be considered asamis. The Patwari, in 1979-1985, made an entry in the revenue records, stating that Amar Singh had become an asami and sirdar of Khasra No. 641, 719, and 697 with effect from 01.01.1974. Following this, the sons of Amar Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, claiming their father had acquired sirdari rights.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that Amar Singh’s name was recorded in possession and that the order of the Assistant Record Officer (A.R.O.) to delete his name was not effectively implemented. The trial court also noted that there was no proof that actual possession of the plot was taken from Amar Singh. The defendants appealed to the High Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision. The High Court held that the A.R.O.’s order in 1961 was valid, and Amar Singh could not claim any right based on the possession entry. The High Court also stated that the Patwari was not authorized to grant asami or sirdari rights. The High Court further noted that Amar Singh himself admitted to releasing the land of Tulsa Devi in 1956, except for the 4 Nali given to him. The High Court concluded that the land in question was given in exchange to the predecessors of the defendants. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960. Section 10 of the Act defines who can be considered an asami. Specifically, Section 10(e) states:

“Section 10. Sirtans to be Asamis.—Every person who, on the date immediately preceding the appointed date, was-
(e) recorded as occupant of land held by a hissedar or a khaikar as such in the last revision of records made under Chapter IV of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901;
shall be called asami of the land and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof.”

This section stipulates that a person recorded as an occupant of land in the last revision of records under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, can be considered an asami. The Supreme Court had to interpret whether Amar Singh could be considered an occupant under this provision, given the A.R.O.’s order to delete his name from the records.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants contended that Amar Singh’s name was recorded in the revenue records as in possession of the plot, making him an asami under the 1960 Act.
• They argued that the entry made by the Patwari in Khasra “1979-1385” was based on statutory provisions and a government order.
• They claimed that Amar Singh was never dispossessed from the plot and the trial court correctly decreed the suit, recognizing Amar Singh as an asami/sirdar/bhumidar.
• They submitted that the entry in favor of Amar Singh as asami could not be considered forged.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the plot in question was given in exchange to their predecessor-in-interest in lieu of the acquisition of their land by the government.
• They stated that the land was originally recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi, who died without heirs, and the land escheated to the State.
• They argued that the entry of possession in Amar Singh’s name was ordered to be deleted by a competent officer during record operations.
• They contended that Amar Singh himself admitted to handing over possession of all plots, including 719, except for the 4 Nali land permitted to be retained by him.
• They submitted that the appellants could not claim any rights under Section 10 of the 1960 Act, as Amar Singh was not recorded as an occupant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether Amar Singh could claim Asami/Sirdari rights on Plot No. 719 based on his name being recorded in possession, despite the order for deletion of his name by the Assistant Record Officer (A.R.O.)?

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:

Cases:

• Vishwa Vijay Bharati vs. Fakhrul Hassan and others, (1976) 3 SCC 642: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that while entries in revenue records are generally accepted, they are open to challenge if they are made fraudulently or surreptitiously. The Supreme Court of India held that fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.

Statutes:

• Section 10(e), Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960: This section defines who can be considered an asami. The court interpreted that to be considered an asami, the person has to be recorded as an occupant in the last revision of records.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Vishwa Vijay Bharati vs. Fakhrul Hassan and others, (1976) 3 SCC 642: The court relied on this case to emphasize that entries in revenue records are open to challenge if they are made fraudulently or surreptitiously.
• Section 10(e), Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960: The court interpreted this section to mean that a person must be a recorded occupant in the last revision of records to be considered an asami.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of accurate and legally sound revenue records. The Court noted that the A.R.O. had ordered the deletion of Amar Singh’s name from the records, and this order was not effectively challenged. The Court also noted that the Patwari was not competent to confer any rights and the entry made by the Patwari was without any authority. Additionally, the Court considered the fact that Amar Singh himself had admitted to releasing the land of Tulsa Devi, except for the 4 Nali given to him. The Court also took into consideration that the land was given in exchange to the predecessors of the respondents.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the continuation of Amar Singh’s name in the records after the deletion order could confer any right. The Court also rejected the argument that the entry made by the Patwari could confer any right on Amar Singh. The Court emphasized that the order of the A.R.O. was valid and that Amar Singh himself admitted to releasing the land of Tulsa Devi. The Court concluded that the land was given in exchange to the predecessors of the respondents.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The statute confers Asami right to a person recorded as occupant in the last revision of records which were undertaken between 1952 to 1962. In the said revision order was passed deleting the name of Amar Singh from the record which is a fact not disputed by any of the parties.”

“The High Court has dealt with the above aspect of the matter and has held that continuation of entry after the order of deletion of the name of Amar Singh cannot confer any right. The judgment of this Court in Vishwa Vijay Bharati vs. Fakhrul Hassan and others, (1976) 3 SCC 642, has rightly been referred to and relied by the High court.”

“Amar Singh himself clearly stated that the land of Tulsa Devi which is escheated to the State will be released from his possession and he shall not interfere and he shall be in possession of only 4 Nali which has been given to him. Plot No.719 was not given to him and was not included in the said 4 Nali land which was left with him.”

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the A.R.O.’s order and Amar Singh’s admission were clear. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appellants’ appeal.

Key Takeaways

• Revenue records are important documents, but entries can be challenged if they are made fraudulently or surreptitiously.
• An order by a competent authority to delete a name from revenue records has legal validity and cannot be ignored.
• Entries made by unauthorized officials, such as a Patwari, cannot confer any rights.
• Admissions made by a party can be used against them in court.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person cannot claim Asami rights based on revenue records if a competent authority has ordered the deletion of their name from those records. The case also clarifies that entries made by unauthorized officials cannot confer any rights. This judgment reinforces the importance of accurate and legally sound revenue records and the validity of orders passed by competent authorities. This case reaffirms the position of law that entries in revenue records can be challenged if they are made fraudulently or surreptitiously.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that Amar Singh could not claim Asami rights based on his name in the revenue records because a competent authority had ordered the deletion of his name. The Court also held that the entry made by the Patwari was without any authority and could not confer any rights. This judgment reinforces the importance of accurate and legally sound revenue records and the validity of orders passed by competent authorities.