Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
DHARAM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
PREM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.516 OF 2009
Decided On : 05-02-2019
Facts of the case:
One Badri Aswal was the owner of agricultural land in Khata/Khatauni No. 46 of Village Gyansu, District Uttar Kashi (earlier part of Tehri Garhwal) measuring a total of 62 Nali and 1 muthi. The said Badri had no issue. He married one Tulsa Devi. It is claimed that Tulsa Devi adopted one Bhopalu as her son after death of her husband but Bhopalu’s name could never be mutated in the Revenue records. Tulsa Devi died much before independence. One Amar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of appellants claimed to be looking after the affairs of Bhopalu and paying land revenue on his behalf. Bhopalu also died before independence and after death of Bhopalu, Amar Singh continued to be in possession of land belonging to Tulsa Devi. Tulsa Devi’s name continued in revenue records. Amar Singh claimed to be in possession of the land. As Tulsa Devi died without an heir, the entire land was treated to be State property.
The Collector, Tehri Garhwal passed an order on 17.04.1956 and ordered that property of Tulsa Devi be got released from the possession of Amar Singh. However, Amar Singh was allowed to remain in possession of the land where his house, Gaushala and Sagwara was situated with the condition that total areas shall not exceed 4 Nali. A document was written on 14.05.1956 which recorded that Amar Singh has handed over possession of the entire land of Tulsa Devi except 4 Nali 1 muthi. The plots covering that area of 4 Nali and 1 muthi was also mentioned in the said document. The Government required land for construction of buildings for District Uttar Kashi, with regard to which land in Village Gyansu was acquired. Instead of paying compensation to tenure holders whose land was acquired, the Government ordered to give land in exchange of the land, which earlier was recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi, which stood escheated to the State. An exchange document was recorded in this context where various plots were given in exchange to different tenant holders whose land was acquired. The record operations in the village in question continued from 1952 to 1963.
The name of Amar Singh was shown in possession with regard to few plots, which were the plots recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi. The A.R.O. passed an order dated 06.05.1961 directing that name of Amar Singh, who was recorded in possession be deleted.
The status of asamis w.e.f. 01.01.1974 and right of sirdar of Khasra No. 641, 719 and 697 was entered against the name of Amar Singh by the Patwari. Amar Singh died in or about the Year 1985. The appellants, who are sons of Lt. Amar Singh filed Civil Suit No. 9 of 1992 against the defendants-respondents praying for permanent injunction.
The grandfather of defendant Mor Singh was Maurusidar, who was owner of plot No. 611 area of 3 Nali 2 muthi, which was acquired by the State and in exchange of said plots Mor Singh was given plot Nos. 366,335, 336 and 364 corresponding to new Plot Nos. 641, 719 and 657. After the death of Mor Singh, partition took place and the plots came in the kura of Narain Singh, father of the defendants.
Narain Singh partitioned the property and since 24.03.1969, it is the defendants, who are the owners of the plot. Narain Singh died in 1974.
It was alleged that plaintiffs are not in possession of the plot Nos. 641 and 719 and it is the defendants, who are in possession and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Trial court decreed the suit for injunction of the plaintiffs.
The High Court has allowed the first appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
Asami right could not have been obtained by Amar Singh and without Aasami right, no question arises of him getting Sirdari right.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Core Holding: Continuance of a person's name in revenue records after an order deleting their name from possession does not confer any rights, such as Asami rights, and without Asami rights, no Sirdari rights can arise. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) (!) [1000629410005][1000629410008][1000629410010][1000629410011][1000629410012][1000629410014]
Land Ownership and Escheat: Badri Aswal owned agricultural land (62 Nali 1 Muthi) in Village Gyansu; after his death without issue, wife Tulsa Devi claimed adoption of Bhopalu (not mutated), died issueless pre-independence, leading to escheat to the State under then-applicable law. [1000629410019] (!) [1000629410005] (!) [1000629410015] (!) [1000629410016]
Amar Singh's Possession and Collector Order: Amar Singh managed land for Bhopalu, continued possession post-Bhopalu's death; Collector Tehri Garhwal ordered (17.04.1956) release of Tulsa Devi's land from his possession, allowing retention of only 4 Nali 1 Muthi for house, Gaushala, Sagwara; Amar Singh signed document (14.05.1956) confirming handover of rest, excluding Plot No. 719. [1000629410019] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000629410005][1000629410016] (!)
Land Acquisition and Exchange: State acquired village land for buildings, used escheated Tulsa Devi land for exchange instead of compensation; Plot Nos. 641, 719 allocated to Mor Singh (defendants' predecessor) in exchange for his acquired Plot No. 611; partition led to defendants' ownership since 24.03.1969. (!) (!) (!) [1000629410015]
Record Operations (1952-1963): Amar Singh's name appeared in possession on some Tulsa Devi plots; A.R.O. ordered (06.05.1961/01.05.1963) deletion as surreptitiously/forged entries by officials, possession already handed to Malguzar; records corrected accordingly. (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000629410007][1000629410008] (!) [1000629410010]
Asami Rights under 1960 Act Section 10(e): Asami status for those recorded as occupants immediately preceding appointed date in last revision under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901; Amar Singh not a recorded occupant post-deletion order, thus ineligible. (!) [1000629410006] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000629410007][1000629410010]
Patwari Entries (1379-1385 Fasli/1979-1985): Patwari entered Asami status w.e.f. 01.01.1974 and Sirdar rights for Plots 641, 719, 697 based on 19.12.1973 G.O.; unauthorized as Patwari lacked competence—only Assistant Collector could confer such rights; no basis without prior Asami status. (!) (!) [1000629410013] (!) (!) (!) [1000629410014]
Trial Court Decree and High Court Reversal: Trial court (13.08.1996) decreed plaintiffs' injunction suit, holding deletion order ineffective/unimplemented, entries not forged, Amar Singh retained possession/Sirdar rights; High Court (28.07.2006) reversed, ruling deletion order binding, entries surreptitious/unauthorized, no rights accrued, exchange valid, defendants in possession. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Revenue Entries' Presumption: Entries presumed correct unless shown fraudulent/surreptitious; here, A.R.O. order confirmed surreptitious entry, robbing legal effect. (!) [1000629410011][1000629410012]
Supreme Court Outcome: Appeal dismissed; no merit as Amar Singh ineligible for Asami/Sirdar rights, plot validly exchanged to defendants' predecessor. [1000629410002][1000629410003][1000629410004][1000629410017][1000629410018]
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 28.07.2006 of High Court of Uttarakhand by the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in suit No. 9 of 1992. The High Court by its judgment has allowed the first appeal filed by the defendants-respondents setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1996 of the District Judge in Suit No. 9 of 1992.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are:
2.1 One Badri Aswal was the owner of agricultural land in Khata/Khatauni No. 46 of Village Gyansu, District Uttar Kashi (earlier part of Tehri Garhwal) measuring a total of 62 Nali and 1 muthi. The said Badri had no issue. He married one Tulsa Devi. It is claimed that Tulsa Devi adopted one Bhopalu as her son after death of her husband but Bhopalu’s name could never be mutated in the Revenue records. Tulsa Devi died much before independence. One Amar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of appellants claimed to be looking after the affairs of Bhopalu and paying land revenue on his behalf. Bhopalu also died before independence and after death of Bhopalu, Amar Singh continued to be in possession of land belonging to Tulsa Devi. Tulsa Devi’s name continued in revenue records. Amar Singh claimed to be in possession of the land. According to law as was in force in Tehri Garhwal at that time that when a tenant/owner dies without an heir, the land is escheated to State. For the reason, Tulsa Devi died without an heir, the entire land was treated to be State property.
2.2 The Collector, Tehri Garhwal passed an order on 17.04.1956 and ordered that property of Tulsa Devi be got released from the possession of Amar Singh. However, Amar Singh was allowed to remain in possession of the land where his house, Gaushala and Sagwara was situated with the condition that total areas shall not exceed 4 Nali. A document was written on 14.05.1956 (paper No.23Gha/2) which recorded that Amar Singh has handed over possession of the entire land of Tulsa Devi except 4 Nali 1 muthi. The plots covering that area of 4 Nali and 1 muthi was also mentioned in the said document. The Government required land for construction of buildings for District Uttar Kashi, with regard to which land in Village Gyansu was acquired. Instead of paying compensation to tenure holders whose land was acquired, the Government ordered to give land in exchange of the land, which earlier was recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi, which stood escheated to the State. An exchange document was recorded in this context where various plots were given in exchange to different tenant holders whose land was acquired. The record operations in the village in question continued from 1952 to 1963 (as has been noted by the High Court).
2.3 The name of Amar Singh was shown in possession with regard to few plots, which were the plots recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi. The A.R.O. passed an order dated 06.05.1961 directing that name of Amar Singh, who was recorded in possession be deleted. The said order was based on a report that name of Amar Singh has been recorded surreptitiously by the record officials.
2.4 In area where the land in question was situated, the Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “1960 Act”) was enforced. In accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Act, Section 10 provides that every person who on the date immediately preceding the appointed date was recorded as occupants of land held by a hissedar or a khaikar was held to be asamis. The Patwari of the village referring to a Government order dated 19.12.1973 made an entry in Khata/Khatauni firstly in the Fasli year 1979-1985 making entries as per the above Government order. The status of asamis w.e.f. 01.01.1974 and right of sirdar of Khasra No. 641, 719 and 697 was entered against the name of Amar Singh by the Patwari. Amar Singh died in or about the Year 1985. The appellants, who are sons of Lt. Amar Singh filed Civil
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
