http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

PETITIONER:

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SHRI KESHAV RAM AND ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/10/1996

BENCH:

K. RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

PATTANAIK, J.

Leave granted.

State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred this appeal

against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh

dated 4.5.1994 in R.S.A. No. 122/86,

The respondents filed the suit for a declaration that

they are the owners in possession of the land comprised in

Khasra No. 153/1 measuring 30 bighas and 18 biswas situated

in Chak Dakana and for restraining the appellant from

interfering with the possession of the respondents. It was

alleged in the plaint that the disputed land stood recorded

in the settlement papers in the year 1950 in the name of the

State as the owner. When the plaintiffs came to know of the

same an application for correction was made and the

settlement authority after holding a detailed enquiry passed

an order for correction and pursuant to the said order

necessary correction was made in the register. The

plaintiffs, therefore, filed an application under Section 37

of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act but the Assistant

Collector deciding the matter directed that the matter

should be referred to the Civil Court and hence the

plaintiffs filed the suit for relief as already stated. The

State contested the suit denying the allegations made in the

plaint. It was also averred in the written statement that

the land in question was initially recorded in the name of

Raja Sahib of Keonthal and after intermediary interest stood

abolished the State became the owner of the land. In the

Revenue papers State was recorded as the owner. The so

called order of the Assistant Settlement Officer on which

the plaintiffs relied will not confer any title on the

plaintiffs. According to the defendant - State, the disputed

land originally stood recorded in the name of Raja Sahib of

Keonthal and thereafter the State was recorded to be the

owner of the land in the record of right prepared in the

year 1949-50, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

The learned Sub Judge, Ist Class. Theog, Distt. Shimla,

however, relying upon the order passed by the Assistant

Settlement Officer came to hold that plaintiffs are the

owners in possession of the land in dispute and hence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

decreed the suit. The State carried the matter in appeal and

the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the

entry in the Revenue register for the year 1949-50 showing

the State to be the owner was an error and the Trial Court

rightly held the plaintiffs to be owners in possession of

the disputed land. With this conclusion, the judgment and

decree of the Trial Court having been confirmed and the

appeal of the State having been dismissed, the matter has

been carried to the High Court in second appeal.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court by the

impugned judgment dismissed the second appeal solely relying

upon the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and hence

the present appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

contends that the very order of the Settlement Officer

directing correction of the entry in record of right is not

there on record and at any rate on the basis of the said

order plaintiffs' title to the disputed land could not have

been declared as an entry in the settlement papers does not

create or extinguish title and at the most has a presumptive

value that on the date when entry was made the person

concerned was in possession of the land. It is accordingly

contended that the courts below committed errors of law in

declaring plaintiffs title on the basis of the aforesaid

order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The learned

counsel, for the respondents on the other hand contended

that the plaintiffs title having been declared by the courts

below on consideration of the entire materials on record, it

would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the

same in exercise of power under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India.

In view of the rival contentions, the question that

arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs have been

able to establish their title and the courts below were

justified in declaring plaintiffs' title. As has been stated

earlier the only piece of evidence or which the courts below

relied upon to decree the plaintiffs' suit is the alleged

order made by the Assistant Settlement. Officer directing

correction of the record of right. The order in question is

not there on record but the plaintiffs relied upon the

register where the correction appears to have been given

effect to. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the

entry in the settlement papers recording somebody's name

could create or extinguish title in favour of the person

concerned? It is to be seen that the disputed land

originally stood recorded in the name of Raja Sahib of

Keonthal and thereafter the State was recorded to be the

owner of the land in the record of right prepared in the

year 1549-0. In the absence of the very order of the

Assistant Settlement Officer directing necessary correction

to be made in favour of the plaintiffs, it is not possible

to visualize on what basis the aforesaid direction had been

made. But at any rate such an entry in the Revenues papers

by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for

declaration of title in favour the plaintiffs. To our querry

as to whether there is any other document on the basis of

which the plaintiffs can claim title over The disputed land,

the learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents could

not point out any other document apart from the alleged

correction made in the register pursuant to the order of the

Assistant Settlement Officer. In our considered opinion, the

courts below committed serious error of law in declaring

plaintiffs' title on the basis of the aforesaid order of

correction and the consequential entry in the Revenue

papers. In the circumstances the appeal is allowed and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

judgment and decree passed in all the there forums are set

aside. The plaintiffs' suit stand dismissed. There will be

no order as to costs.