Government grants: Resumption of land – Suit for declaration and possession – On facts, the State of UP-respondent, through Collector, filed suit for declaration, possession and damages with respect to land that it was a government grove and presently belonging to the U.P. State Garden Department – Said grove was rent free grant of the defendant-appellant by the ruler of erstwhile Rampur State and was later resumed by the successor in 1930 and thereafter, came in the hands of the State of U.P. however, the appellant managed to get her name continued in the revenue record though her possession was removed – Plea of the appellant that they were throughout in possession and, as such, had perfected her right, title and interest on the coming of the 1952 Act; and that in a previous proceeding State acquiesced to the defendant’s title – Trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent – Also, in the first appeal and second appeal, the order of the trial court upheld – On appeal, held: Neither any order resuming the earlier grant nor any order of the revenue court to show that the said resumption of land had been incorporated in the revenue records was filed – Only evidence led by the respondent was filing of a true copy of Muafiat Register and the statement of PW-2, clerk working in the revenue department, which is not free from suspicion and cannot be relied upon – There was no evidence to prove the resumption of the grant – Furthermore, respondent led no evidence to establish possession since 1930 after the resumption – Courts below have proceeded on assumptions and presumptions to hold in favour of the State – Appellants had filed not only documentary evidence to prove their continuous possession but also oral evidence, which was ignored – Thus, the High Court erred in not taking into consideration the relevant material and instead relied upon inadmissible evidences – Even the burden of proof has been wrongly placed on the appellant – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to High Court – U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1952.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1 The suit of the respondent instituted for the relief of declaration, possession and mesne profits was based on the averments that the grant given by Nawab Hamid Ali Khan in 1924 in favour of the appellant, had been resumed by his successor, Nawab Raza Ali Khan in the year 1930, thereafter, the respondent had entered into possession, the records were corrected, however, the appellant on account of some omission in the maintenance of the records, re- entered into possession sometimes in 1959 and, therefore, they were compelled to file a suit. It is also stated that the respondent made an attempt to get the records corrected through the revenue court by way of an application for correction of revenue records, but the same was rejected by the Deputy Collector in 1953. [Para 13][234-H; 235A-B]
1.2 The first thing required to be proved by the plaintiff/-respondent was that there was resumption of the grant given in favour of the appellant. For the said purpose, neither any such order resuming the earlier grant was filed, nor any order of the revenue court was filed to show that the said resumption of grant had been incorporated in the revenue records. The defense taken was that all the records had been destroyed in a fire in 1947. The only evidence led by the plaintiff- respondent was filing of a true copy of Muafiat Register and the statement of PW-2, who was said to be working as a Clerk in the Revenue Department. [Para 14][235-C-D]
1.3 According to counsel for the appellant, two basic objections were taken for not relying upon the Muafiat Register. Firstly, it had torn binding and had loose pages. Secondly, the entire register was written in blue-black ink and it is only the entry relating to the land in question regarding resumption was written in black ink. These two aspects casted a doubt on the veracity of the entries in the register and in particular the entry relating to the resumption. The document was, thus, a document not free from suspicion and as such, no reliance could be placed upon it. [Para 15][235-E-F]
1.4 Apart from the above, no other evidence was led by the plaintiff/-respondent to prove the resumption. PW-2 in his cross-examination, had no explanation for the loose pages, the index i.e. the first page and the last page being missing with no detail of the number of pages in the said register. Further, there was no explanation for the difference in the ink and that too only on the page by which, the entry relating to resumption with respect to the land in dispute was made. The courts below relied upon the entries in the Muafiat Register only for the reason that it was a document produced by the State and the State would have no reason to make any kind of interpolation. There was no other supporting document with regard to presumption of the land in question. [Para 16][235-F-H]
1.5 Referring to the above documents and statements, counsel for the appellants submitted that grave injustice has been done to the appellant by the courts below in holding that there was a resumption, in the absence of any credible, reliable evidence to that effect. Prima facie, there is substance in submission of the appellants that apparently there was no evidence to prove the resumption of the grant. [Para 17, 18][236-A-B]
1.6 The finding recorded by a Class-I Officer of the State could not be easily ignored. It is true that correction of record proceedings is summary in nature, but when the inspection was carried out, such finding recorded in the order regarding possession ought not to have been ignored. [Para 21][236-F]
1.7 Plaintiff/respondent’s led no evidence to establish that it was throughout in possession since 1930 after the resumption. The courts below have proceeded on assumptions and presumptions to hold in favour of the State on the question of possession and to decree the suit. [Para 22][236-G-H]
1.8 The defendant/appellants had filed not only documentary evidence to prove their continuous possession but also oral evidence, which has been ignored. [Para 23][237-A]
1.9 Appellants submitted that courts below have placed reliance upon a letter of the defendant-appellant dated 19.07.1954 to draw presumption that the defendant-appellant was not in possession in 1954 and it is for this reason that she had applied for seeking to be put back into possession. The contents of the said letter have been perused. According to it, there is some land of Government and after merger the Government Garden Department, Rampur has taken possession over her grove and the request made was to direct the Government Garden Department, Rampur to remove their possession from her garden so that she may have full possession of her share. This clearly means that there was issue of some part of the land granted to the defendant-appellants being in possession of the Garden Department, Rampur. [Para 24][237-B-D]
1.10 This letter has been heavily relied upon by the courts below to record the finding of possession in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The signatures on the said letter were denied by the defendant-/appellant, but the same was sought to be proved through a nephew of step- sister instead of getting the same verified by a hand-writing expert. [Para 25][237-D-E]
1.11 The High Court fell in error in not taking into consideration the relevant material and instead relying upon inadmissible evidence or evidence which had no bearing to the findings. Even the burden had been wrongly placed on the defendant/appellant. Further, the High Court ought to have carefully scrutinized the evidence available on record and only thereafter arrived at a conclusion. The judgment of the High Court impugned in the appeal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court. [Para 29, 31][238-D-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.