Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)
Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 May, 2026 cites

Suraj Bhan & Ors vs Financial Commissioner & Ors on 16 April, 2007

Their primary function is to enable the person whose name is mutated in the records to pay the land revenue in question.4 16.2 A Revenue Record is not a document of title and does not confer any ownership or title upon the person whose name appears in it.5 Further, mutation does not create or extinguish title and has absolutely no presumptive value regarding title.6 16.3 The mere acceptance of municipal or agricultural taxes, or the granting of a bank loan based on these records, does not stop the State from challenging the ownership of the land.7 16.4 While they do not prove title, Revenue Records can raise a presumption regarding possession.8 Maintenance and custody of Revenue Records is the exclusive domain of the Patwari, and it is not uncommon that Revenue Records are often tinkered with by him to suit the exigencies.9 4 Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186; Jitendra Singh v. State of MP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223. 5 Suraj Bhan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 201 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) Thr. ... vs Arthur Import & Export Co.. on 31 January, 2019

Their primary function is to enable the person whose name is mutated in the records to pay the land revenue in question.4 16.2 A Revenue Record is not a document of title and does not confer any ownership or title upon the person whose name appears in it.5 Further, mutation does not create or extinguish title and has absolutely no presumptive value regarding title.6 16.3 The mere acceptance of municipal or agricultural taxes, or the granting of a bank loan based on these records, does not stop the State from challenging the ownership of the land.7 16.4 While they do not prove title, Revenue Records can raise a presumption regarding possession.8 Maintenance and custody of Revenue Records is the exclusive domain of the Patwari, and it is not uncommon that Revenue Records are often tinkered with by him to suit the exigencies.9 4 Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186; Jitendra Singh v. State of MP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223. 5 Suraj Bhan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 119 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors vs Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors on 11 December, 2007

(supra) 7 Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (supra) 8 Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar (supra); Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (supra) 9 Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349. 11 16.5 Stray or solitary entries recorded for a single year do not raise a presumption of rights and cannot be relied upon against a long, consistent course of revenue entries in favour of another party.10 16.6 The creation of fabricated records in collusion acts as a camouflage to defeat the legal rights of the actual tiller, and the Government is not bound by them.11
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 149 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of A.P. & Ors vs M/S. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co on 21 February, 2013

(supra) 7 Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (supra) 8 Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar (supra); Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (supra) 9 Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349. 11 16.5 Stray or solitary entries recorded for a single year do not raise a presumption of rights and cannot be relied upon against a long, consistent course of revenue entries in favour of another party.10 16.6 The creation of fabricated records in collusion acts as a camouflage to defeat the legal rights of the actual tiller, and the Government is not bound by them.11
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 47 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Guru Amarjit Singh vs Rattan Chand And Others on 12 August, 1993

(supra) 7 Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (supra) 8 Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar (supra); Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (supra) 9 Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349. 11 16.5 Stray or solitary entries recorded for a single year do not raise a presumption of rights and cannot be relied upon against a long, consistent course of revenue entries in favour of another party.10 16.6 The creation of fabricated records in collusion acts as a camouflage to defeat the legal rights of the actual tiller, and the Government is not bound by them.11
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 124 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next