CHANDIGARH: Noticing that possession of waste lands, riverbeds and fallow lands across Punjab continued to be shown in ‘khasra girdawari’ on the name of a person “surreptitiously”, the Punjab revenue commission has recommended that possession should be recorded in favour of the original owner like the municipal corporations, municipal councils, nagar councils or village panchayats.
Illegal encroachment of government land has been a serious issue in Punjab. Even forest and wildlife minister Sadhu Singh Dharamsot had in April 2018 claimed that 28,600 acres of forest land was under illegal possession of “politically influential persons” across the state.
“It has generally been noticed that when a person other than the owner is in occupation of land in some capacity or the other like tenant or unauthorised occupation, his possession continues to be shown in ‘khasra girdwari’ even though the general rule is that ‘possession follows title’,” observed the commission headed by Justice S S Saron (retired).
The commission added it affects proprietary rights of owners which include even the state government, municipal corporations, municipal councils, nagar councils and gram panchayats particularly in respect of ‘shamlat deh’ land.
Khasra girdawari is a revenue document in which the patwari (revenue officer), on the basis of harvest inspection done twice a year, makes entries like name of land owner, land cultivator, land or khasra number, area of land, nature of land like cultivated or non-cultivated, source of irrigation, crop sown and revenue rate.
The revenue commission said the Supreme Court has held in ‘Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar vs Nagesh Siddapa Navalgund’ case, “a revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act”.
In another case, Nair Service Society Ltd Vs KC Alexander, the Supreme Court held: “Possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title no one can deny but this presumption can hardly arise when the facts are known. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides.”
The apex court had also made the law clear in “Chief Conservator of Forests vs Collector”, holding that it certainly does not mean that because a man (or government body) has title over some land, he necessarily is in possession of it. It in fact means that if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him. Therefore, the revenue commission has recommended to the Punjab government, “In respect of fallow lands or lands where no cultivation is done, the possession should invariably be recorded in favour of the owner as shown in the revenue record.”
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/show-original-ownership-in-revenue-records-panel/articleshow/73062600.cms
