FAROOQI BEGUM (D) BY LRS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 12-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
227
FAROOQI BEGUM (D) BY LRS.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Civil Appeal No. 1534 of 2009)
JULY 12, 2022.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Government grants: Resumption of land – Suit for declaration
and possession – On facts, the State of UP-respondent, through
Collector, filed suit for declaration, possession and damages with
respect to land that it was a government grove and presently
belonging to the U.P. State Garden Department – Said grove was
rent free grant of the defendant-appellant by the ruler of erstwhile
Rampur State and was later resumed by the successor in 1930 and
thereafter, came in the hands of the State of U.P. however, the
appellant managed to get her name continued in the revenue record
though her possession was removed – Plea of the appellant that
they were throughout in possession and, as such, had perfected her
right, title and interest on the coming of the 1952 Act; and that in a
previous proceeding State acquiesced to the defendant’s title – Trial
court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent – Also, in the first
appeal and second appeal, the order of the trial court upheld – On
appeal, held: Neither any order resuming the earlier grant nor any
order of the revenue court to show that the said resumption of land
had been incorporated in the revenue records was filed – Only
evidence led by the respondent was filing of a true copy of Muafiat
Register and the statement of PW-2, clerk working in the revenue
department, which is not free from suspicion and cannot be relied
upon – There was no evidence to prove the resumption of the grant
– Furthermore, respondent led no evidence to establish possession
since 1930 after the resumption – Courts below have proceeded on
assumptions and presumptions to hold in favour of the State –
Appellants had filed not only documentary evidence to prove their
continuous possession but also oral evidence, which was ignored –
Thus, the High Court erred in not taking into consideration the
relevant material and instead relied upon inadmissible evidences –
Even the burden of proof has been wrongly placed on the appellant
– Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 227
227
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
matter is remitted to High Court – U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1952.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1 The suit of the respondent instituted for the relief
of declaration, possession and mesne profits was based on the
averments that the grant given by Nawab Hamid Ali Khan in 1924
in favour of the appellant, had been resumed by his successor,
Nawab Raza Ali Khan in the year 1930, thereafter, the respondent
had entered into possession, the records were corrected,
however, the appellant on account of some omission in the
maintenance of the records, re- entered into possession
sometimes in 1959 and, therefore, they were compelled to file a
suit. It is also stated that the respondent made an attempt to get
the records corrected through the revenue court by way of an
application for correction of revenue records, but the same was
rejected by the Deputy Collector in 1953. [Para 13][234-H; 235-
A-B]
1.2 The first thing required to be proved by the plaintiff/
-respondent was that there was resumption of the grant given in
favour of the appellant. For the said purpose, neither any such
order resuming the earlier grant was filed, nor any order of the
revenue court was filed to show that the said resumption of grant
had been incorporated in the revenue records. The defense taken
was that all the records had been destroyed in a fire in 1947. The
only evidence led by the plaintiff- respondent was filing of a true
copy of Muafiat Register and the statement of PW-2, who was
said to be working as a Clerk in the Revenue Department. [Para
14][235-C-D]
1.3 According to counsel for the appellant, two basic
objections were taken for not relying upon the Muafiat Register.
Firstly, it had torn binding and had loose pages. Secondly, the
entire register was written in blue-black ink and it is only the
entry relating to the land in question regarding resumption was
written in black ink. These two aspects casted a doubt on the
veracity of the entries in the register and in particular the entry
relating to the resumption. The document was, thus, a document
not free from suspicion and as such, no reliance could be placed
upon it. [Para 15][235-E-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
229
1.4 Apart from the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.