SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 456

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
M.E.A.Mohamed Ali & Others - Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer & Others - Respondents
W.A. No. 546 of 2005
Decided On : 16 March 2005

Advocates Appeared: For The Appellants :V. Sitharanjandas Advocate. For The Respondents: D. Krishnakumar, Special Govt. Pleader.

Entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title, parties aggrieved by such entries should adjudicate their rights in a civil suit

Headnote:

Revenue Records - Dispute over entries in revenue records - Entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title, nor have presumptive value - Writ petitions should not be entertained against orders for making entries in revenue records - Parties aggrieved by such entries should adjudicate their rights in a civil suit

Fact of the Case:

Dispute over entries in revenue records, writ appeal filed against impugned judgment of the learned single Judge

Finding of the Court:

Entries in revenue records do not create any right in favor of the parties, order of the revenue authorities is not binding in the civil suit, civil court will decide the rights of the parties independently of the order of the revenue authority

Issues: Dispute over entries in revenue records, jurisdiction of writ petitions in such cases

Ratio Decidendi: Entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title, writ petitions should not be entertained against orders for making entries in revenue records, parties aggrieved by such entries should adjudicate their rights in a civil suit

Final Decision: Writ appeal is disposed off, no costs, WAMP No.1017/2005 is closed

Judgment :-

The Hon'ble Chief Justice:

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.9.2004

2. The dispute relates to entries in the revenue records. It is well settled that entries in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value vide M.T.W.Tenzing Namgyal & Ors. v. Motilal Lakhotia & Ors., JT 2003(5) SC 173, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997)7 SCC 137 and Smt. Sawarni v. Smt.Inder Kaur and others, 1996(7) JT S.C. 580. Such entries are only for the purpose of payment of land revenue. Hence the parties aggrieved by such entries in the revenue records should get their rights adjudicated in a civil suit. Ordinarily writ petitions should not be entertained against orders for making entries in the revenue records, as such orders do not affect the rights of any one.

3. We make it clear that the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge does not create any right in favour of the parties in that case. We further make it clear that the order of the revenue authorities is not binding in the civil suit, and the civil court will decide the rights of the parties independently of the order of the revenue authority.

4. With the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed off. No costs. Consequently WAMP No.1017/2005 is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top