Introduction:
In law, ‘Possession’ means either acquisition or a considerable control over a tangible property, for example, Land, or it could also mean control of something intangible, like rent or credit with a definite understanding about ownership. Intangible property has always been abstract, however, today in terms of land property, possession may not necessarily mean physical possession, but could also be abstract. For instance, a servant maybe have custody of a property, but the property is not under his possession, the master is the owner. As per the common law system, possession is regarded as evidence ‘at the face value’ or as ‘prima facie’ to grants the right to the true owner. Mere possession can be sufficient enough to create a ground for action against anyone who encroaches on the owners property.
Under the Constitution, land falls within the sphere of the State Government to legislate, hence laws related to property, movable or immovable vary from State to State. Other than agricultural land, registration, documentation or transfer of property comes under the Concurrent List, thus the Central Government can also govern certain aspects of sale, purchase, transfer, mortgages etc. Laws like the Registration Act, 1908, provides registration for all properties along with their transactional history, to make sure there are proper records available in the public domain. In India, independent statutes are accountable to these registration acts.
If an individual enters the property under someone else’s possession, he has committed criminal trespass, which is provided by S. 441 of the IPC. Demarcation of land protects the owner’s right as it establishes a proper boundary of the registered land. This enables the owner to keep encroachers away. In case of encroachment of land, an application can be filed to the court seeking an injunction restricting the invaders from disturbing your property.
The case of the Union of India and others V. Vasavi Co-op Housing Society[1], was one of the land dispute cases where it was tried in the trial court and High Court, but after appealing the original judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court.
About the Case
This case is regarding a disputed land in Kakaguda Village which enclosed Survey No. 60,61 and 62. B.M. Rama Reddy and his sons had sold the land to the plaintiff in 1981-82. The land in dispute was a part of the mentioned survey. This Survey number was originally surveyed No. 53 which then got renumbered. Rama Reddy enjoyed complete possession of the land and was paying land revenue as well. Disputes arose against several defendants. The sixth defendant took possession of the land and sublet it to all the other defendants. The Plaintiff claimed that the first defendant built an A.O.C centre in Tirumalagiri village which adjoins the disputed land. They had acquired more than 4 acres of survey no.60 of Kakaguda Village in 1971. The third defendant wanted to extend the project of the A.O.C Centre acquiring an additional 0.10 acres in 1979. This was made public in 1980, and Rama Reddy was granted compensation by 1982. As the above can be noted, there were several purchases and extensions made during the 1980s by Rama Reddy, wherein more than 13 acres of survey 60, 11 acres of 61, and 17.5 acres of 62, were purchased.
The land purchased by the plaintiff was vacant at the time, however, the Defence Department started encroaching on the land stating that a portion of that purchased land belonged to them. Having no other option, the plaintiff submitted an application in 1983to the District collector asking for a fixation of boundaries enclosing the plaintiff’s land. A year later, The Deputy Director called upon the plaintiff and the defendant to demarcate the land. The defendant claimed that 4 acres of the land that had been used for the centre belongs to them according to the General Land Register – No.445. The Director of Survey clarified that as per the settlement records, that land was not completely a part of Survey 60. The Plaintiff filed an application under the Urban Land Ceiling Act for review, however, while the application was pending, Garrison Engineers’ officers, obeying the defendant, illegally occupied a land of total 6 acres of survey 60 and 61. Despite protests, the land kept getting further encroached upon and finally the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Union of India and other defendants.
A written statement was filed stating that the first defendant owns 7 acres, that is more than the land occupied, and has domestically given the possession of that piece to the 3rd defendant which is monitored according to all defence records. Also, The G.L.R. classified the mentioned land as B-4 which is under the management of the Defence Estate Officer. Hence, they held a defence that the land claimed by the plaintiff was wrong and the plaintiff is unnecessary possessing empty threats to encroach upon those acres belonging to the defendant. As per official records, G.L.R – No.445, of Kakaguda Village currently belongs to the first four defendants along with defendant no. 7.
The Appellant Arguments (Defendant)
Shri Vikas Singh, the counsel of the appellant(defendant), pointed out that the measure in the G.L.R – no.445, if classified as B-4 shall then belong to the Central Government, which would then be handed out to the defence ministry to build infrastructure or Defence quarters. As per the records, 6 acres land has already been used for construction of Defence infrastructure. It was clear that there is no tally between the G.L.R and the settlement deed in Ext.A-3. The burden of proof is heavy for the plaintiff, as he has to prove the details of the land when the original registration of family settlement took place years ago. Also, Shri Vikas pointed out that it would be erroneous on the High Court’s part to ignore the G.L.R shown by the defendant, even though the defendant does not really have the burden to prove his ownership, as per the lawsuit.
The Respondent Arguments (Plaintiff )
On the other side Shri P.S. Naraishimha and Basava Prabhu Patil, appearing for the plaintiff, preferred that certain entries made in the G.L.R have been discarded as they do not hold any legal position. The High Court and the city civil court were right on their part to do the same by taking the context of history into consideration. As the defendants took reference of the Land Administration Rules, it was pointed out that this is not applicable to Kakaguda Village. Several other references like Ex.A6, Ex.A7, Ex.A8 show that Methurama Reddy, the ancestor of the title was a Pattedar of Survey 60 and 61. Hence, the evidence has considerable value. Further, Section 3(j) of the Ceiling Act, provides that such land is not in the purview of any financial or revenue assessment. The respondent counsel preferred that the plaintiff has a successful establishment of the title to the land, and like ordered by the High Court and City Civil Court, this requires no interference by the Supreme Court.
Why a Dilemma?
The main issue that the trial court faced was whether the plaintiff was the owner of those 6 acres under survey 60 and 61 based on the settlement records, or, whether the defendant possessed that land as per the G.L.R. records. The claim of ownership made by the defendant had a considerable weightage hat could dismiss the entire lawsuit. The Deputy Inspector stated that the settlements mapped was originally survey no.53, which was exhibited in A-3 Setwar, a settlement register revised at that time. Survey No. 60, 61 and 62 that belonged to Mr. Reddy is ‘patta land’ that corresponds to the old survey 53. Evidence showed that the plaintiff’s predecessors were ‘pattedars’ and, in simple words ancestors of the title.
On the other hand, the defendants pleaded that the old survey rightfully covered 33.2 acres of land and when the surveys were revised the measure of that land should have remained the same, however, survey 60,61 and 62 was granted a total of 41.7 acres of land. No notice of this additional land was given to the defendant, and the defendant believed it to be foul play, influenced by Venkata Narasimha Reddy, the original owner of the land. In addition to this, the defendant went on to state that the G.L.R was prepared by Captain O.M. James after a thorough enquiry on occupancy rights. Historically, land that belonged to certain villagers, for example, the Nizams, were handed over to the British Government for military purposes. This mentioned disputed land was used by Britishers as pits and bunkers and was classified as ‘C-Class Land’ by the authorities.
The G.L.R of 1933, was revised in 1956, whereas per the Land Administration Rules, G.L.R – No.445 was explicitly classified as B-4, which is to be reserved for future military management, and was transferred to the Defence Estate. The facts of the case point out the plaintiff’s rights as his title can be traced back to his ancestors, whereas, the other hand shows that the G.L.R gives the defendant the title claim. Now the question of doubt is put forward to the court, where they need to consider if the plaintiff has a sufficient base to declare the title of the land as theirs.
It is common law knowledge that the burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff to establish the grounds of the case in order to grant a declaration to the land. The High Court’s view is that once all the evidence is gathered, there is no burden of proof on anyone’s shoulders. The evidence is to be taken into consideration and based on that the court ultimately determines the fate of the case. There is always an initial burden of proof upon the plaintiff to proceed with a case but in the bargain if the defendant brings in additional evidence, it cannot be ignored.
Precedent and the Supreme Court’s Perspective
The case of Maran Mar Basselios Catholics V. Thukalan Paulo[2], was observed wherein the court declared that if the plaintiff has to succeed, they will have to strengthen their own title by providing sufficient evidence. The Supreme court noticed that the issue with the High Court’s decision was that it paid more attention to the defendants weakness than the Plaintiff’s Strength. The defendants relied on the G.L.R as their evidence, and, the court went on to examine that, eventually determining that there can be no reliance on the G.L.R. The dilemma faced is not about the validity of the G.L.R, but whether the plaintiff can prove his ownership. Hence, attention should be focused on the intricates of the Ext.A-3 and whether it is enough to declare the title.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the establishment of Patta ancestry does not conform to the title. The Supreme Court, overturned the High Court’s decision, stating that Ext. A-3 which was valuable according to the High Court, was actually nothing but just a document of rights and certain provisions in the Pahani Patrika. The court clarified that even if this Patrika was valuable, it cannot be used as sufficient evidence to confer any title. It is important for the plaintiff to show a valid history of his predecessors where they actually owned the disputed property and everything they purchased. The only registered document submitted before the court is a family settlement deed of 1939 wherein there is no specific mention of the land in question.
Even though the plaintiff preferred that since this land is non-taxable, it is normally not mentioned in settlement deeds, the A.P Survey and Settlement Manual that deals with such ‘pot kharab land’ should ideally have a reference of this suit-land. This raises doubt on the ownership claimed by the plaintiff, unless they can give a reasonable explanation as to why is it omitted. Also, as mentioned above, if the old survey 53 grants only 33.2 acres of land, then naturally the new survey cannot exceed that measure. Therefore, concluding that the plaintiff can only succeed on the strength of his case and not on the defendants weakness.
References:
[1] UNION OF INDIA AND ORS V. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. – JANUARY 7, 1947, CIVIL APPEAL NO.4702 OF 2004
[2] Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & … vs Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr on 20 June, 1995, 1995 AIR 2001, 1995 SCC Supl. (4) 286
0 Comments