Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors AIR 1976 SC 1485 It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title. 

Wall Mohammad (Deceased) By L.Rs vs Ram Surat & Ors AIR 1989 SC 2296, If the entry is fictitious or is found to have been made surrepti- tiously then it can have no legal effect as it can be re- garded as no entry in law, but merely because the entry is made incorrectly that would not lead to the conclusion that it ceases to be an entry. It is possible that the said entry may be set aside in appropriate proceedings.

Laxmappa Kakappa Nelagund vs The Land Tribunal And Anr.  ILR 2003 KAR 4096, 2003 (2) KarLJ 647 JUSTICE  N. PATIL The entries in the relevant record of rights for the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1973-74, show the name of the petitioner in cultivator's column and mode of cultivation is one. The 'one' indicates that he is claiming as owner. Therefore, entries found earlier in the record of rights has got no relevance as held by this Court in the case cited above. In my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for grant of occupancy rights as tenant in respect of the land in question.

JUSTICE  N. PATIL  Gangappa Yamanappa Chalawadi vs The State Of Karnataka  2008 (2) KarLJ 728  The said illegal entry found in the record of rights cannot be accepted for the reason that, mere entry in the record of rights will not entitle the petitioner to claim occupancy rights even though there is a presumption of correctness of entries appearing in the record of rights as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said entry must be made on the basis of the order passed by the competent authority.

Mohan Balaku Patil & Ors. vs Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre  AIR 1999 SC 1114, JT 1999 (1) SC 183, 1999 (1) SCALE 191  When in fact the Tribunal made local enquiry by spot inspection and had come to the conclusion that the appellants were in possession that factor should have weighed with the appellate authority, particularly in the face of the admission made by the respondent that the appellants had constructed the building on the land and were paying charges in respect of the electric pump set used for irrigating the land and ought to have held that the appellants were cultivating the land. In addition, the land in question was shown not to be cultivated by the respondent as the respondent was residing nowhere the land but at a far away place and that the land was not cultivated personally by the owner and the persons cultivating the land were not members of their family nor there was any evidence that the appellants were servants or hired labourers on wages and ought to have on that basis held the appellants as deemed tenant in respect of the land. The presumption arising under Section 133 of the Act in respect of the entries made in the record of rights stood displaced by the finding of fact recorded that the appellants were in actual possession of the land and were cultivating the same. In the face of such an admission made by the respondent it is difficult to accept the finding recorded by the appellate authority as affirmed by the High Court that in view of the entries made in the record of rights the appellants could not be stated to be in possession of the land on the relevant date nor was cultivating the same.

No comments: