cites: 405654

M.E.A.Mohamed Ali vs The District Revenue Officer on 16 March, 2005

In this connection, the decision of this Court in M.E.A.Mohamed Ali and others v. The District Revenue Officer reported in 2005 (4) CTC 9 could fruitfully be referred to. An excerpt from it, would run thus:

Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - M Katju - Full Document

M.T.W. Tenzing Namgyal & Ors vs Motilal Lakhotia & Ors on 5 February, 2003

"2. The dispute relates to entries in the revenue records. It is well settled that entries in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value vide M.T.W.Tenzing Namgyal & Ors. v. Motilal Lakhotia & Ors., 2003 (5) SCC 1 : JT 2003 (5) SC 173; Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, 1997 (7) SCC 137; and Smt.Sawarni v. Smt.Inder Kaur and others, 1996 (6) SCC 223 : 1996 (7) JT SC 580. Such entries are only for the purpose of payment of land revenue. Hence the parties aggrieved by such entries in the revenue records should get their rights adjudicated in a civil suit. Ordinarily writ petitions should not be entertained against orders for making entries in the revenue records, as such orders do not affect the rights of any one.

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 30 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Balwant Singh & Anr. Etc vs Daulat Singh (Dead) By L.Rs. &Ors on 7 July, 1997

"2. The dispute relates to entries in the revenue records. It is well settled that entries in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value vide M.T.W.Tenzing Namgyal & Ors. v. Motilal Lakhotia & Ors., 2003 (5) SCC 1 : JT 2003 (5) SC 173; Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, 1997 (7) SCC 137; and Smt.Sawarni v. Smt.Inder Kaur and others, 1996 (6) SCC 223 : 1996 (7) JT SC 580. Such entries are only for the purpose of payment of land revenue. Hence the parties aggrieved by such entries in the revenue records should get their rights adjudicated in a civil suit. Ordinarily writ petitions should not be entertained against orders for making entries in the revenue records, as such orders do not affect the rights of any one.

Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 144 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Smt. Sawarni vs Smt. Inder Kaur And Others on 23 August, 1996

3. We make it clear that the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge does not create any right in favour of the parties in that case. We further make it clear that the order of the revenue authorities is not binding in the civil suit, and the Civil Court will decide the rights of the parties independently of the order of the revenue authority."

Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 285 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

M.E.A.Mohamed Ali vs The District Revenue Officer on 16 March, 2005

M.T.W. Tenzing Namgyal & Ors vs Motilal Lakhotia & Ors on 5 February, 2003

Balwant Singh & Anr. Etc vs Daulat Singh (Dead) By L.Rs. &Ors on 7 July, 1997

Smt. Sawarni vs Smt. Inder Kaur And Others on 23 August, 1996