When One Person Is Recorded as on One Plot and on Another Plot
Land records in West Bengal frequently throw up confusing situations. One such scenario involves a person, say Gopal, whose name appears in the in two different capacities: in Dag No. 221 he is recorded as a , while in the very next entry, Dag No. 222, he is recorded as (sometimes written Awas Dokhol). The natural question that follows is: what is Gopal's true legal status, and can he own property? The answer depends entirely on which entry governs which plot, and the two statuses carry very different legal consequences.
What Actually Means in West Bengal Land Records
The term denotes a person who is in possession of land with the permission of the recorded owner but without any formal title or independent ownership right. It is an entry of — nothing more.
Under the (), a person recorded as is:
- Not an owner of the land
- Not a — of the defines a as a person who holds land for purposes of agriculture 1977 0 Supreme(Cal) 51
- Not a — a cultivates another's land in exchange for a share of the produce under of the Act 1999 0 Supreme(Cal) 458
- Not a non-agricultural tenant under the 2018 0 Supreme(Cal) 182
A recorded also cannot transfer the land, since he holds no right, title, or interest capable of being transferred. Any such transfer would generally be void.
Why Gopal's Two Entries Point in Different Directions
The critical feature of this case is the contrast between the two Dags:
Dag No. 221 — recorded as : Here, Gopal holds land for agricultural purposes and enjoys the rights and protections of a under 1977 0 Supreme(Cal) 51. His name in this capacity is evidence of a tenancy/ownership interest in that specific plot.
Dag No. 222 — recorded as : For this plot, the record expressly states that Gopal is in possession only by permission of the recorded owner. He has in Dag No. 222 merely by virtue of this entry.
Courts have consistently treated these statuses as distinct. In a case where a plaintiff recorded as a claimed to be a yearly tenant of the landowner, the recorded entry of was the starting point of the analysis, and the plaintiff had to prove her actual status differed from the record 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1405. The same logic applies to Gopal: the entry in Dag No. 222 creates a presumption of that he must rebut if he claims more.
Can Gopal Own Property? Breaking Down Each Dag
For Dag No. 221 ( entry)
Gopal can generally own, enjoy, mutate, and (subject to land ceiling and transfer restrictions under the ) alienate the land in Dag No. 221 as a , provided the entry stands and is not successfully challenged.
For Dag No. 222 ( entry)
Gopal does not automatically own this land. However, ownership may still be acquired through the following routes:
1. If Gopal can prove that his actual status is that of a tenant or — and that the entry is erroneous — he may apply for correction of the L.R. Record:
- Application under for correction of L.R. records 2003 0 Supreme(Cal) 507
- Correction under may also be relevant 2003 0 Supreme(Cal) 507
- The Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to entertain such applications, and a Revenue Officer holding the additional designation of Settlement Officer can direct incorporation of names in the even without prior cancellation of the existing record1983 0 Supreme(Cal) 85
- Any enquiry must follow the principles of natural justice: notice affixed at conspicuous places in the village and the Gram Panchayat office, naming all parties, the plot, and the time and place of enquiry 1983 0 Supreme(Cal) 155
- Adverse orders are appealable under 1999 0 Supreme(Cal) 458, and further recourse lies to the 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1386 or the by writ petition under
2. Civil Suit for Declaration and InjunctionGopal may file a suit for and permanent injunction, pleading that the recording is erroneous and that he acquired rights through tenancy, purchase, or another lawful mode 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1405. He would need to prove:
- The nature and source of his possession (lease, agreement, purchase, inheritance)
- Continuous possession supported by documents such as tax receipts and utility bills
- That possession was under a claim of right, not mere permissiveness
3. If Gopal's possession of Dag No. 222 has been continuous, open, and for the statutory period of 12 years under the , he may claim title by . The difficulty is obvious: an entry evidences permission, and is the very negation of hostility. Courts have, however, recognised acquisition of title by long possession in appropriate fact situations — for instance, where a defendant in a title dispute successfully pleaded after decades of possession 1981 0 Supreme(Cal) 4.
4. If the land in question vests in the State under the (for example, under in specified circumstances 2018 0 Supreme(Cal) 182), the State may, at its discretion, settle the land with the person in possession. This is discretionary, not a right.
and Practical Steps for Gopal
The burden lies squarely on Gopal to establish that his possession of Dag No. 222 is not merely permissive. Practically, he should:
- Collect the C.S. and R.S. records and current L.R. record for both Dags
- Gather documents evidencing the basis of possession — lease deeds, agreements, sale deeds
- Collect possession documents: tax receipts, mutation records, utility bills
- File an application under Section 51A(4) before the appropriate Revenue Officer, or
- Pursue a civil suit for declaration and injunction if the dispute requires adjudication of title
It is also worth noting that revenue and mutation records are not conclusive proof of title — they raise presumptions that can be displaced by evidence, as courts have repeatedly emphasised in land disputes involving competing claims over specific Dags 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 738. Conversely, a validly acquired title (for example, through a registered deed followed by mutation) is strong evidence of ownership, and cancellation of mutation without hearing the affected party has been held unjustified 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 65.
Key Takeaways
- Dag No. 221: Gopal, recorded as , generally holds ownership-type rights in that plot under the 1977 0 Supreme(Cal) 51.
- Dag No. 222: Gopal, recorded as , is only a with no automatic ownership rights 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1405.
- He cannot transfer the Dag No. 222 land as things stand, and any attempted transfer would typically be void.
- Ownership of Dag No. 222 may be pursued through record correction under Section 51A(4), a declaration suit, (if 12 years of hostile possession can be proved), or State settlement in vesting situations.
- Because West Bengal land law involves an interplay between the , the WBLR Rules, and the , the specifics of Gopal's khatian entries, possession history, and documents should be assessed by a qualified practitioner before any step is taken; the above is general information and not specific legal advice.
