J&K Land Revenue Act | Presumption Of Correctness Of Entries In Revenue Records Cannot Be Overriden By Affidavits: High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the presumption of correctness attached to entries in revenue records under Section 31 of the J&K Land Revenue Act cannot be dislodged merely by swearing an affidavit.
Justice Sanjay Dhar made this observation while setting aside an interim order passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, which had directed the parties to maintain status quo over a disputed piece of land.
"This presumption has not been rebutted by the plaintiffs by placing on record any document to the contrary. Merely swearing an affidavit that they are owners in possession does not dislodge the presumption attached to the entries in Khasra Girdawari," the Court emphasized, restoring the trial court's order refusing injunction to the plaintiffs.
The petition arose from a land dispute where the plaintiffs, heirs of one Abdul Salam Bhat, claimed ownership and possession of a patch of land. They filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against the defendants heirs of Mst. Khati alleging unlawful interference in their peaceful possession.
Alongside the suit, they moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim relief. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish prima facie possession, and relied on revenue records, particularly the Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi, which showed that Mst. Khati (defendants' predecessor) was the recorded owner in possession.
Aggrieved by the trial court's refusal, the plaintiffs approached the appellate court, which reversed the decision and directed maintenance of status quo. The appellate court found the plaintiffs' sworn affidavits sufficient to preserve the subject matter of the dispute during pendency of the suit.
Contesting the appellate court order Advocate M. A. Makhdoomi, contended that the appellate court committed a jurisdictional error by interfering with a well-reasoned order of the trial court. He relied on unchallenged revenue records showing their possession, arguing that mere affidavits by the plaintiffs could not rebut the statutory presumption under the Land Revenue Act.
The respondents through N. A. Beigh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mohammad Murshid, Advocate submitted that the plaintiffs had supported their claim with sworn affidavits asserting possession since 1970. They argued that to preserve the lis and prevent irreparable harm, the appellate court rightly ordered status quo.
However, Justice Dhar found fault with this reasoning.
“The learned appellate court, in its anxiety to protect the subject matter of the lis, directed maintenance of status quo on spot without realising that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case in their favour,” the Court noted.
Justice Dhar held that the burden to rebut the presumption arising from entries in revenue records lies squarely on the plaintiffs. In this case, not a single revenue extract was placed by them to support their plea of possession since the alleged partition in 1970.
“Copy of Khasra Girdawari issued in the year 2022 shows that the suit land is under the personal cultivation of Mst. Khati… Her name is also reflected in the ownership column in the revenue record,” the Court highlighted.
The Court also clarified that interim injunctions are not automatically granted in every suit for injunction. They are contingent upon the plaintiff's ability to demonstrate a prima facie case, it underscored.
“In the present case, the plaintiffs have failed to support their assertion regarding possession of the suit property and, on the contrary, the contesting defendants have been able to prima facie show that they are in possession of the suit land,” the Court held.
The High Court also underscored that appellate courts cannot interfere with discretionary orders of trial courts unless they are shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
“The discretion exercised by the learned trial court is neither arbitrary nor perverse, as such, it was not open to the learned appellate court to interfere with the order,” the Court observed, branding the appellate court's intervention as a "grave error" resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court quashed the appellate order.
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioners: Mr. M. A. Makhdoomi, Advocate
For Respondents (by Mr. N. A. Beigh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mohammad Murshid, Advocate)
Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Bhat & Ors Vs Ghulam Nabi Bhat & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)