Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)The Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors vs L. Venkatesh Reddy on 17 April, 2015
20.Now in the present matter, first of all it is to be seen as to who is
owner of land. It is settled law that mutation entries does not confer
any right, title and interest in the suit property. Merely, IP No. 1 has
LAC-56B/2015 Page No.9/15
been recorded owner in the revenue record does not mean that by
these entries only IP No. 1 be declared to be owner. The reliance is
placed on judgment titled H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors. Vs. L.
Venkatesh Reddy decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Civil Appeal No. 3725-3726 of 2015 dated 17.04.2015
wherein Hon'ble Court discussed the law laid down in judgment
"Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223 and discussed that
"Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not
create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value
on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation
is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned
Additional District judge was wholly in error in coming to a
conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys
title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the
entire judgment".
Smt. Sawarni vs Smt. Inder Kaur And Others on 23 August, 1996
20.Now in the present matter, first of all it is to be seen as to who is
owner of land. It is settled law that mutation entries does not confer
any right, title and interest in the suit property. Merely, IP No. 1 has
LAC-56B/2015 Page No.9/15
been recorded owner in the revenue record does not mean that by
these entries only IP No. 1 be declared to be owner. The reliance is
placed on judgment titled H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors. Vs. L.
Venkatesh Reddy decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Civil Appeal No. 3725-3726 of 2015 dated 17.04.2015
wherein Hon'ble Court discussed the law laid down in judgment
"Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223 and discussed that
"Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not
create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value
on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation
is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned
Additional District judge was wholly in error in coming to a
conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys
title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the
entire judgment".
Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 21 August, 2009
21.The law is also well settled that any stray entry will also not confer
any right, title or interest in favour of person in whose favour the
entry is made. There should be notice to opposite party if there is
any change in khasra girdawaris ad it should not be done without
prior notice. All principles of natural justice should be followed. The
reliance is placed on judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi titled Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
Anr. passed in RFA No. 123/09, dated 21.08.2009, wherein it
was held that "Trial Court also failed to appreciate that any
LAC-56B/2015 Page No.10/15
change in khasra Girdawari and Khatoni cannot be done
without prior notice to the affected parties as per Section 66
of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules 1962. No notice of change
in khasra entires was ever received by the appellants.
Moreover, mutation/revenue entries, do not create any title
and are not evidence of title".
Rajinder Singh And Another vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) on 21 March, 2013
22.What is true about Khatoni is also true about the Khasra Girdawaris
and to this effect, reliance is placed on judgment passed in Civil
Writ Petition No. 3821/2011 titled Rajinder Singh & Anr. Vs.
Financial Commissioner passed by Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab & Haryana dated 21.03.2013 wherein it was held that
"As we have already noticed, the object of harvest
inspection/girdawari is to collect accurate information
regarding crops, change in rights, rent and possession of
land, amendments required in the village map, the data with
regard to crops for the purpose of overall planning. One
must understand that basis or nature of a revenue entry,
namely, it neither confers nor divest a party of its title
whether proprietary or possession and is a mere fiscal entry
recorded to update the revenue record." So change in entries in
khasra girdawari and khatoni stands on same footing.
Ved Parkash Sikri @ Vedi vs Union Of India And Ors. on 8 August, 1990
1. If there is any dispute then there is no need to invoke the
jurisdiction of revenue officers under DLR Act if land has already
been acquired as settled in judgment titled M/s Sikri Brothers Vs.
Union of India, 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 56 and
titled Pyare Vs. Financial Commissioner 1994 (2001) DLT 348
(DV). It is settled that Court of ADJ has to determine the question.
Union Of India Kunj Bihari Sharma & Ors vs Tara Chand Sharma & Ors. Union Of India & ... on 13 August, 1998
Two questions are to be seen in the present matter as to who is
LAC-56B/2015 Page No.8/15
owner and who is in possession. If IP No. 1 is held to be owner in
possession then by implication of law, IP No. 1 will be entitled to
100% of compensation and if IP No. 2 is held so then IP No. 2 will be
entitled to 100% of compensation but if ownership and possession
vested differently in two parties then ratio will be decided as to who
is entitled for how much share. The law in this respect is well
settled. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court
in case titled as Bihari & Ors. Vs. UOI 47 (1992) DLT 300.
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi, Land And Building ... vs Smt. Poonam Gupta W/O Shri Praveen Gupta ... on 5 December, 2005
Rather, it has been held in judgment titled Govt. of NCT Delhi Vs.
Poonam Gupta 2005 (125) DLT 423 that "rights of bhumidari
as matured are to be seen from the date when petition
under Section 85 of DLR Act was filed. If person had
acquired those rights on the said date, mere delay in
deciding the rights does not debar the said person from the
benefits which a declared bhumidar is entitled."