Revenue Entry Unchallenged in Competent Forum Cannot Be Wiped Out on Forgery Allegation Alone, Rules Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal by Kanpur Development Authority, upholding a permanent injunction protecting a two-room construction where acquisition of the specific land was not proved.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a first appeal filed by the Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) against a decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiff over a two-room construction on part of Arazi No. 1807 in Kanpur. Justice Anil Kumar-X, sitting singly, upheld the trial court's findings on possession, rejected the KDA's claim that the disputed land had been acquired pursuant to Award No. 1 dated 16 October 1958, and held that an existing revenue entry in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor could not be treated as forged or non-existent merely because the defendant alleged it to be so, where no competent court or revenue authority had ever set it aside.
The Suit and the Rival Claims
The original suit, O.S. No. 2001 of 1984, was filed before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar by Sri Nathu Lal Gupta seeking permanent injunction restraining KDA from interfering with his possession over House No. 127/W/1807-A, situated over part of Arazi No. 1807, and over the entire Arazi No. 1807 measuring 23 bighas and 12 biswas at Mohal Dilip Singh, Village Juhi Kala, Kanpur.
The plaintiff's case rested on a lease deed dated 7 May 1945 executed by the erstwhile Zamindar, Late Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar, in respect of Arazi No. 1807 for the purpose of operating a brick kiln. He claimed that the brick kiln project never materialised because the soil was alkaline, whereupon he raised huts, constructed a boundary wall, and commenced a building materials business. He asserted possession since 1 July 1952 and pleaded protection under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Vileya Abadi Adhiniyam, 1948, and under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. His name, or that of his predecessor Nathu Lal, was recorded in the record of rights for Fasli 1356.
KDA contested the suit on several grounds. It denied that the land ever belonged to Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar, described the lease deed as forged and fabricated, and disputed the plaintiff's description of the land's location, asserting it lay at Mohal Ram Charan and not Mohal Dilip Singh. Most significantly, KDA claimed that Arazi No. 1807, comprising about 40 bighas, had been acquired on 18 October 1958 pursuant to Award No. 1 dated 16 October 1958, and that possession had been taken on the same date. Private co-defendants also pleaded that the plaintiff's revenue entries had been obtained by fraud.
The Trial Court's Findings
The trial court framed nine issues, of which four were substantive. On Issue No. 8 (whether the revenue entries in favour of the plaintiff were forged), the trial court found that the record of rights for Fasli 1356 recorded the name of deceased Nathu Lal in respect of Arazi No. 1807. The record relied upon by KDA, of Fasli 1394, referred to land at Mohal Ram Charan, not the disputed land at Mohal Dilip Singh. The allegation of forgery was accordingly decided against KDA.
On Issue No. 9 (whether the lease deed was void), the trial court held that the lease deed dated 7 May 1945 had no legal value conferring title, though it might have relevance for collateral purposes.
On Issue No. 2 (whether the land was acquired under Award No. 1 dated 16 October 1958), the trial court found against KDA. It noticed that paragraph 17 of the award referred to only two bighas of Arazi No. 1807, while the possession certificate did not mention Arazi No. 1807 at all. KDA also failed to produce any document showing payment of compensation in respect of the specific land claimed by the plaintiff.
On Issue No. 1 (title and possession), the trial court found that the plaintiff had not established possession over the entire Arazi No. 1807, but had established possession over the portion comprising the two-room construction at House No. 127/W/1807-A. The decree of permanent injunction was accordingly confined to that portion.
That judgment and order dated 9 November 2004 was what KDA challenged in First Appeal No. 251 of 2005 before the High Court.
KDA's Arguments in Appeal
Senior Counsel Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, assisted by Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, advanced three principal arguments for KDA.
First, that the trial court misread paragraph 17 of Award No. 1 dated 16 December 1958. According to KDA, that paragraph did specifically refer to Arazi No. 1807 and, when read with the other acquisition documents cumulatively, established that the disputed land was part of the acquisition. The trial court, KDA argued, incorrectly assumed that a reference to a limited area of the Arazi in the award meant the entire Arazi was excluded.
Second, KDA relied on Paper No. 81 of the appeal, a statement showing compensation determined and paid to landowners under the acquisition. That document recorded payment of Rs. 3,249/- in favour of Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar — the very person through whom the plaintiff claimed his title by way of the alleged lease. KDA argued this strongly corroborated that the land of Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar was included in the acquisition, and that the trial court erred in finding no evidence of compensation payment.
Third, KDA argued that since the lease deed of 1945 was itself found to have no legal value, the entire foundation of the plaintiff's claim collapsed. Revenue entries alone cannot create or confer title, and having found the lease void, the trial court ought not to have relied on those entries as supporting the plaintiff's claim.
The Respondent's Defence
Senior Counsel Sri Atul Dayal, assisted by Sri Abhishek Tiwari, for the respondent-plaintiff, made the following points. Arazi No. 1807 was a large tract of approximately 68 bighas, and KDA claimed to have acquired only 40 bighas and 19 biswas. The mere fact that Arazi No. 1807 appeared in the acquisition proceedings did not mean the entire Arazi, including the portion in the plaintiff's possession, was acquired. The award, even read as a whole, did not identify the exact portion acquired by specifying boundaries or other particulars. In the absence of such identification, KDA could not claim the plaintiff's specific portion was included.
On the revenue entry, the respondent submitted that the Fasli 1356 entry predated the alleged acquisition, remained unchallenged before any competent authority, and continued to support the plaintiff's possession. KDA could not, by referring to general acquisition proceedings relating to Arazi No. 1807, seek to dispossess the plaintiff without first proving the specific portion in his possession was actually acquired.
The High Court's Reasoning
Justice Anil Kumar-X structured the analysis around three points of determination: whether title was a substantial issue requiring independent adjudication; whether the possession finding was sustainable; and whether a permanent injunction could be granted without a declaration of title.
On title and the revenue entry. The Court referred to Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2033, which holds that a declaration of title is necessary only when the defendant's challenge creates a genuine cloud over the plaintiff's title. Where the plaintiff has a clear and established title and the defendant merely disputes it without setting up any apparent competing right, a suit for injunction can stand without a prayer for declaration.
The Court held that the plaintiff's case was not founded solely on the 1945 lease deed. It also rested on the Fasli 1356 revenue entry, which recorded Nathu Lal's name in respect of Arazi No. 1807 and pre-dated the acquisition proceedings. That entry had never been cancelled, corrected, or set aside by any competent revenue authority or court. KDA's allegation that it was forged was therefore not a matter that could simply be accepted and acted upon in the injunction suit, absent any such prior adjudication by a competent forum.
The Court noted that KDA's own Fasli 1394 entry was found by the trial court to relate to land at Mohal Ram Charan, not Mohal Dilip Singh. KDA had thus failed to show that the Fasli 1356 entry in the plaintiff's favour had been lawfully displaced. The Court was careful to distinguish between two propositions: the settled rule that a revenue entry does not by itself confer title, and the separate question whether an existing, unchallenged entry can be simply ignored on the basis of an unproved allegation of forgery. The latter, it held, it cannot.
On possession. The finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the two-room construction rested on three independent pieces of evidence. KDA itself had issued a notice to the plaintiff directing removal of the two-room construction — an implicit admission that the construction existed on the site claimed by the plaintiff. The Commissioner's report independently corroborated the existence of a room over the alleged site. And KDA's own witness, D.W.-1 Mumtaz Ahmad Chisti, admitted the plaintiff's possession, though he described it as illegal. The Court observed that the dispute was therefore about the legality of possession, not about whether physical possession existed. Those are distinct questions.
Beyond the evidence of physical occupation, the trial court had also applied Section 3 of the United Provinces Village Abadi Act, 1948, to constructions raised on abadi land before the relevant date with the consent of the zamindari. The High Court upheld that statutory analysis. The construction appeared to predate 1950 and the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and the trial court's conclusion that the statutory protection applied was not found to be infirm.
On injunction without declaration. The Court held that where a plaintiff establishes possession and the defendant fails to establish a better right to interfere with it, the relief of permanent injunction cannot be denied merely for want of a separate declaration of title, particularly when an existing revenue entry in the plaintiff's favour continues to hold the field. KDA had not established that the specific two-room construction and the land beneath it had been acquired and that possession had been taken pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. The Award's reference to only two bighas of Arazi No. 1807, the possession certificate's silence on Arazi No. 1807, and the failure to produce compensation records tied to the plaintiff's specific portion, all militated against KDA's case. The Rs. 3,249/- compensation recorded for Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar under Paper No. 81 was argued by KDA to show the lessor's land was acquired, but the Court did not find this argument sufficient to overturn the cumulative finding that the particular portion in the plaintiff's possession had not been shown to be within the acquired area.
All three points of determination were answered against KDA.
Outcome
First Appeal No. 251 of 2005 was dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 9 November 2004 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar, in O.S. No. 2001 of 1984, granting a permanent injunction restraining KDA from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the two-room construction at House No. 127/W/1807-A, was upheld. The decree was confined to that limited portion; the plaintiff's claim over the entire Arazi No. 1807 measuring 23 bighas and 12 biswas was not decreed.