Holding

The appellant failed to prove title or possession; the land remains Government land and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Babu Lal Sharma filed a suit claiming title, ownership and possession of 1.84 acres of land, asserting that his father had sold 0.53 decimal to Chhedilal Gupta in 1945 and that the remaining 1.31 acres belonged to him. He discovered that the land had been entered as Government land in the revenue records of 1953‑54 and sought rectification, which was rejected. The trial court dismissed his suit, the first appellate court reversed in his favour, but the High Court set aside that decree. The Supreme Court examined the revenue records, which showed the land was originally a Khadan (mine) declared Nazool and had never been in the appellant’s name, and noted that he had no possession or title and made no successful claim of adverse possession. The Court also held that a separate judgment concerning the 0.53 decimal parcel was unrelated. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the land remains Government property.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant established title and possession over the 1.31 acres of land.
Whether the entry of the land as Government land in revenue records can be rectified in favour of the appellant.
Whether the judgment concerning the 0.53 decimal parcel is relevant to the present dispute.
Whether an adverse possession claim can be sustained in the absence of possession.

Subjects

titleownershippossessiongovernment landrevenue recordsadverse possessionrectificationKhadanNazoolcivil suit

Judgment

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 348

1'
A BABU LAL SHARMA
V.
STATE OF M.P.
(Civil Appeal No. 2434 of 2006)

JULY 7, 2009
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
DR.B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] ••
Suit - Suit seeking declaration of title, ownership and
C possession - Plea that suit land entered in revenue records
as Government Land, actually belonged to him - Revenue
courts rejecting application for rectification of records - Suit
dismissed - In first appeal suit decreed - Second appeal
deciding against plaintiff - On appeal, held: Possession and
o title of plaintiff not established - Revenue records show that
the suit properly was all along a Government land.

Appellant filed a suit seeking a decree of declaration
of title, ownership and possession of suit land,
E measuring 1.84 acres. The case of the plaintiff was that
a piece of the suit land measuring 0.53 decimal was sold
to 'C' by his father in the year 1945. It came to the
knowledge of the appellant in 1984 that the disputed land
was entered in the revenue records of 1953-54 as
Government land. He filed application for rectification of
F the entry which was rejected by revenue courts. In a
litigation regarding the land sold, i.e. 0.53 decimal of the
disputed land, the vendee's title was declared thereon
upto Supreme Court. In view of that decision, the
appellant contended, that the remaining suit land could
G not have been entered into revenue records as
Government land. Trial court dismissed the suit. First
appellate court decreed the suit. In second appeal, High
Court set aside the decree. Hence the present appeal.

H 348
BABU LAL SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. 349

.; ,., Dismissing the appeal, the Court A

HELD: 1. In the documents, which are exhibited, it is
clearly mentioned that these are not cultivable lands but
originally they were 'Khadans' (mines) and the same land
was declared as Nazool lands. The revenue records B
which are referred to in the present case, clearly depict
that the land has all along been the Government land. The
·- +- land was also said to be in a ruinous state and, therefore,
there was no possession of the appellant-plaintiff with
respect to the said land. No argument for claiming a right
by way of adverse possession was made, which
c
although was a plea taken in the courts below. The
appellant-plaintiff has also admitted in his evidence that
he has been residing outside the suit land. Therefore, it
is clearly established that the appellant-plaintiff did not
even have the possession of the suit land. Furthermore, D
there is no document to prove his title. He has not been
able to prove and establish as to how his father came to
own the said property which was a Government land. The
revenue courts have also given a finding against the
appellant-plaintiff. [Paras 14 and 15] [354-B-F] E

2. Reliance placed on the judgment of the various
f _; courts including the Supreme Court in respect of the land
measuring 0.53 decimal which was allegedly sold by
father of the appellant-plaintiff to the vendee is totally F
misplaced. The said land was transferred way back in the
year 1945. The name of the appellant-plaintiff is not
shown in any capacity in the revenue records but clearly
the name of the alleged vendee is shown to be entered
in respect of the land namely 0.53 acres. However, the G
name of the appellant-plaintiff is not recorded at all in
respect of the remaining land i.e. 1.31 acres which is the
subject matter of the present case. It is, therefore, clearly
established that the disputed property is in no way
connected with that of the subject matter of the
H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

~
A proceedings measuring 0.53 acres of land. It is also '

found from the record that the case pertaining to 0.53
acres of land was fought out between different parties.
[Paras 14 and 15] [354-A-C; 355-8-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
B
2434 of 2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2005 of the ,; .
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal
No. 372 of 2002.
c
T.P. Mishra and R.K. Pandey (for Kuldip Singh) for the
Appellants.

S.K. Dubey and Vikrant Singh (for B.S. Banthia) for the
Respondents. r.,
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. By this judgment
and order we propose to dispose of this appeal which has been
E filed by the appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment
and order passed in the second appeal by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh.
~ 1
2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking for a decree
for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property
F comprising Khasra No. 1709, Rakba No. 1.84 situated at
village Sagola, Tehsil Narsinghgarh Purva, District Chhattarpur,
Madhya Pradesh. The case as pleaded in the plaint was that
the aforesaid land earlier comprised of an area of 1.84 acres
of land which was under the title and possession cilf Mahadev
G Prasad Richharia, the father of the appellant-plaintiff out of
which some portion was under the physical use of Mahadev
Prasad Richharia on which a house was constructed and some
other portion was surrounded by 'Bari'. It was also alleged that
from the aforesaid Khasra No. 1709 consisting of 1.84 acres
H of area, 0.53 decimal of land was sold to one Chhedilal Gupta
.~
BABU LAL SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. 351
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

------..... "' in the year 1945 and that Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father A
of the appellant-plaintiff had executed a sale deed to that effect
in favour of Chhedilal Gupta and had also handed over the
possession to him on the date of sale of the land. It was further
alleged that after the aforesaid sale of land the remaining
portion of disputed land i.e. 1.31 acres of land remained'unoer B
the title and possession of Mahadev Prasad Richha'ria, the
father of the appellant-plaintiff. After the death of Mahadev
• ·*· Prasad Richharia, Babu Lal Sharma, the ;:ippellant.:plaintiff
became his successor and, therefore, owned and possessed
the said disputed area of 1.31 acres. Subsequently, however, c
it came to his knowledge that the Patwari of village Bagota
without any order of the competent authority entered the
disputed land as Government land in the revenue records
somewhere in the year 1953-54 although the said land was
being shown in the name of Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the
D
father of the appellant-plaintiff in the revenue records for the year
1953-54.

3. Consequently, an application for-rectification was moved
by the appellant-plaintiff in the revenue court alleging that since
the entry with respect to the disputed land was entered in the E
revenue record as Government land by Patwari of village
Bagota without the order of the competent authority which fact
~-
; becaITTe known to the appellant-plaintiff only in the year 1984,
... the said' record ought to be rectified. The said appl(cation filed
by the appellant-plaintiff was, however, rejected by the revenue F
court on 20.04.1984.

4. An appeal against the aforesaid order was filed by the
appellant-plaintiff in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer which
was allowed by an order dated 26.06.1988 and the matter was
G
remanded back to the court of Tehsildar, Chhettarpur for fresh
~
consideration. The Tehsildar, Chhattarpur reconsidered the
matter but, however, passed an order on 10.11.1995 against
the appellant-plaintiff.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Tehsildar, H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A Chhattarpur an appeal was filed in the court of Sub-Divisional
Officer which was disri1issed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

6. Consequently, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the
court of 2nd Civil Judge, Class-I, Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh
bearing Civil Suit No. 96-A of 1998 seeking for a decree of
8
declaration of title, ownership and possession. In the said suit
it was alleged that 0.53 decimal of land was sold to one
Chhedilal Gupta by Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of ; .
the appellant-plaintiff in the year 1945 from Khasra No. 1709
consisting of 1.84 acres of land. A notice under Section 248
C of the Madhya Pradesh State Revenue Code was issued to
Chhedilal Gupta when he started construction of a house on the
aforesaid land. In the said case an order was passed imposing
a fine of Rs. 1500/- along with an order · viction from the land
against Chhedilal Gupta.
D
7. As against the aforesaiC.: order of fine and eviction Dr.
Pannalal Gupta, the son of Chhedilal Gupta filed a civil suit for
declaration of title in the civil court. Although the trial court
dismissed the aforesaid civil suit, the first appellate court
E granted a decree 1n favour of Dr. Pannalal Gupta in respect of
said 0.53 decimal of land.

8. It was stated that the aforesaid case ultimately came to
the Supreme Court whereupon the Supreme Court dismissed
the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly,
F the decree passed by the first appellate court in favour of Dr.
Pannalal Gupta was affirmed. In view of the same, it was alleged
that the remaining portion of the land measuring 1.31 acres
could not have been entered into the revenue records as
Government land by the Patwari.
G
'
9. The aforesaid suit was contested by the respondent
herein and upon framing of the issues on the pleadings of the
parties, the parties led their evidence. On completion of the trial
of the suit, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-
H appellant.
BABU LAL SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. 353
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)
"
__.. ~ 10. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid A
· judgment and order preferred an appeal. The first appellate court
.. after hearing the appeal reversed the judgment and order
passed by the trial court and passed a decree in favour of the
plaintiff-appellant. The respondent-State being aggrieved by the
aforesaid judgment and order filed a second appeal bearing B
No. 372 of 2002 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which
was admitted on 08.10.2003. After admitting)he appeal the
>-t High Court heard the appeal and by a detail~d judgment and
decree passed on 19.10.2005 allowed the appeal and set
aside the decision of the first appellate court. c
11. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff
<.
against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the High
Court
.~)( D
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff
relied upon the judgment a11d decree passed by the first
appellate court in respect of 0.53 decimal of land which was
allegedly a part of the disputed land initially. It was submitted
that the said land being a part of the suit land in the present
case and a decree having already been passed in favour of the E
appellant-plaintiff and the said land having been transferred by
Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of the appellant-plaintiff
f ~ only, in favour of Chhedilal Gupta, the predecessor-in-interest of
Dr. Pannalal Gupta, the said decree should have been relied
upon and referred to in the present case since the said decision F
had relevance and bearing while deciding the present case.
Counsel for the respondent however refuted the submission
contradicting inter alia that the judgment in respect of 0.53
decimal of land has no relevance at all as the said judgment
was passed in respect of another piece of land and the parties G
were also different.
+-
13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties we have perused the records
including the judgments passed by all the three courts below.
Our attention was drawn to the various documents placed on H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A record which were exhibited in the suit.

14. In our considered opinion reliance placed on the
judgment of the various courts including the Supreme Court in
resp.eel of the land measuring 0.53 decimal which was
allegedly sold by Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of the
B appellant-plaintiff to Chhedilal Gupta is totally misplaced. The
·said land was transferred way back in the year 1945. We are
here concerned with an area of land measuring 1.31 acres only.
. The said land is entered in the revenue records in the name of
the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The revenue courts have
C given a finding against the appellant-plaintiff.

15. In the documents which are exhibited it is clearly
mentioned that these are not cultivable lands but originally they
were 'Khadans' (mines) and the same land was declared as
o Nazool lands. Therefore, the revenue records which are referred
to in the present case clearly deriict that the land has all along
been the Government land. The land was also said to be in a
ruinous state and, therefore, there was no possession of the
appellant-plaintiff with respect to the said land. No argument for
E claiming a right by way of adverse possession was made
before us which although was a plea taken in the courts below.
The appellant-plaintiff has also admitted in his evidence that he
has been residing outside the suit land. Therefore, it is clearly ,.,.. _ _.,
established that the appellant-plaintiff did not even have the
possession of the suit land. Furthermore, there is no document
F to prove his title. He has not been able to prove and establish
as to how Mahadev Pr.asad Richharia, his father came to own
the said property which was a Government land. The oldest
khasra entry which is available on record is Exhibit P-11 which
·pertains· to the period of 1943-44. In the said khasra entry
G names of the appellant-plaintiff are not recorded in any capacity
whatsoever in the relevant columns. Rather in the column meant
for the narne of 'Kastkar' (Cultivator) and his status, cross sign
is shown whereas the- nature of the land is shown as 'BA AR
RASTA'. In khasra corresponding to year 1951-52 (Exhibit_ P-
H 12) the name of the appellant-plaintiff is not mentioned at all in
BABU LAL SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. 355
(DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
any capacity. The name of appellante-plaintiff was recorded in A
the next year i.e. 1953-54 which is Exhibit P-4 but there also
the name of the appellant-plaintiff is recorded in column No. 7
whereas column No. 8 was meant to show the name of the
cultivator occupying them. The nature of the land is not shown
to be cultivable but is shown to be as 'Khadan' i.e. mines. The B
name of the appellant-plaintiff is not shown in any capacity in
the revenue records but clearly the name of Dr. Pannalal Gupta
is shown to be entered in respect of the land namely 0.53 acres.
However, the name of the appellant-plaintiff is not recorded at
all in respect of the remaining land i.e. 1.31 acres which is the c
subject matter of the present case. It is, therefore, clearly
established that the disputed property is in no way connected
.. with that of the subject matter of the proceedings measuring
0.53 acres of land. We also find from the record that the case
pertaining to 0.53 acres of land was fought out between different D
parties. Therefore, the decision rendered in the said case has
no relevance to the facts of the present case which is to be
decided on the basis of the facts proved herein.

16. In view of the aforesaid observations, we find no merit
in the presP.nt appeal which is accordingly dismissed. E

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.