Revenue Entries Don't Confer Title But Are Admissible As Evidence Of Possession: Supreme Court
Though revenue entries do not confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession, observed the Supreme Court in a recent judgment.
"Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence," the Court observed.
The Court also reiterated that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of private citizens.
"Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government," observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.
The observation was made in a judgment dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Haryana raising a claim of adverse possession against a property of private individuals.
The private parties had filed a civil suit in 1981 in respect of a land measuring 18 Biswas Pukhta adjoining the National Highway 10, alleging that the Haryana Public Works Department had unauthorisedly occupied it. The State opposed the suit claiming that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 1879-80 and had perfected title through adverse possession.
The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the first appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. In second appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court restored the decree, against which the State approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that by claiming adverse possession, the State had impliedly admitted the title of the plaintiffs. The revenue record entries, sale deeds and mutation entries also established the title of the plaintiffs.
Rejecting the claim of adverse possession, the Supreme Court stated, "it is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens." Reference was made to the judgment in Vidya Devi v. State of H.P(2020) 2 SCC 569.
The Court also held that the acts relied upon by the appellants—such as placing bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and constructing a boundary wall in 1980—do not constitute adverse possession.
"Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period. In this case, the appellants' possession lacks the element of hostility and the requisite duration," the Court observed.
Appearances: Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee for the State; Senior Advocate Santhosh Paul for the respondents.
Case : The State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Since deceased) through Legal Representatives
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 900
Click here to read the judgment