Jagtar Singh vs The State Of Uttarakhand

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1497 OF 2018 (@SLP (C) NO(S).5278 OF 2014)

Jagtar Singh & Ors. …. Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 29.07.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 3791 of 2001

whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was

Signature Not Verified dismissed. Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2018.02.02 14:19:44 IST Reason: 2

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the land,

which is the subject matter of dispute, was earlier shown in

possession of one Teja Singh and entry in this behalf was

reflected in Varg-4 of the revenue record. After Teja Singh

died, his name was substituted by Appellant Harbhajan Kaur

(since deceased) by the Supervisor Qanoongo since he found

her to be in possession of the land. Jagir Singh and Karnail

Singh, sons of Teja Singh, filed objections under the U.P.

Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that after the death of

their father, they being the sons continued to be in possession

of the land and their name should have been recorded in the

revenue record. These objections were dismissed. However,

on appeal being filed by the sons, the Settlement Officer,

Consolidation set aside the order passed by the Consolidation

Officer and directed that the names of Jagir Singh and

Karnail Singh be recorded in the revenue records. Revision

filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was

dismissed and thereafter, the writ petition was filed. 3

4. The High Court held that though Para 423 of the Land

Records Manual authorizes the Supervisor Qanoongo to make

entry of possession in remarks column but it shall be done

after full publicity about his visit. In this case, neither

publicity was done nor notice was given to the legal heirs of

Teja Singh and, therefore, both the Settlement Officer and the

Deputy Director, Consolidation were justified in quashing the

entries made in favour of the present appellants. The High

Court went on to hold as follows:

“In the impugned orders passed by the S.O.C. and D.D.C., so far as the finding that the Supervisor Qanoongo has no right to correct the entry in revenue record, which is already in existence, is concerned, this finding is affirmed, but so far as the direction given to enter the names of Karnail Singh and Jagir Singh on the land in dispute is concerned, the same is quashed and it is held that the entry of petitioners and the respondents cannot continue in revenue record after consolidation and it is directed that entry of Varg-4 be deleted from the land in question of both the parties, petitioners as well as the respondents.”

5. We are in agreement with the aforesaid findings to the

extent that Supervisor Qanoongo could not have made entries

in favour of the appellants without giving public notice and 4

without giving notice to the legal heirs of Teja Singh. The

dispute is as to which of the parties is in possession of the

land. The High Court erred in directing that the names of

both the parties should be removed. This could not have

been done. Therefore, the direction of the High Court that the

entry of possession cannot continue in favour of either of the

parties is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Supervisor

Qanoongo, who after hearing both the sides, shall decide as to

who is in legal possession of the land in dispute and

thereafter make relevant entry in the revenue records.

6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending

applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

………………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur)

…………………………J. (Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi February 02, 2018