1

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)

J U D G M E N T

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

dismissed.

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