The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust vs. Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead) through LRs. [February 20, 2024]
Background
This Supreme Court case addressed a long-standing land dispute in Udaipur, Rajasthan. The respondents (Ganga Bai Menariya and her legal heirs) filed a civil suit in 1999 seeking permanent injunction, ownership, and possession of a parcel of land, claiming they had purchased it from the Gram Panchayat in 1959. The appellants, representing the Urban Improvement Trust, contended the land was government property reserved for grazing and could not have been lawfully transferred by the Gram Panchayat.
Litigation History
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the respondents had not proven their title or lawful possession.
The First Appellate Court reversed this, decreeing in favor of the respondents and restraining the appellants from interfering with their possession.
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, holding that the respondents’ evidence supported their claim and that a suit for injunction alone was maintainable even when title was disputed.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court critically examined the evidence and procedural aspects:
Failure to Prove Title: The Court found that the respondents did not produce any revenue record to show that the land had ever been mutated in their favor. The land continued to be shown as government property in official records.
Competence of Gram Panchayat: The Gram Panchayat was not made a party to the suit. The respondents failed to prove that the Gram Panchayat had the authority to lease the land, especially since it was reserved for grazing cattle under government records.
Evidentiary Shortcomings: The lease deed relied upon by the respondents was not properly proven. The document lacked signatures of the alleged signatories, and no records were summoned from the Gram Panchayat to establish its authenticity. The presumption of truth under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act did not apply due to these deficiencies.
Maintainability of Suit: The Court reiterated that a suit for injunction alone is not maintainable when title is in serious dispute. The proper course is to seek a declaration of title, as laid down in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy and reaffirmed here.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, and restored the Trial Court’s order dismissing the suit. The Court emphasized the importance of careful pleadings and evidence, warning that errors can have disastrous consequences for litigants.
Significance
This case underscores that:
Mere possession or production of old documents is insufficient to claim ownership when title is disputed.
Proper parties (like the Gram Panchayat) must be impleaded, and the authority to transfer land must be established.
In land disputes involving government property, strict compliance with procedural and evidentiary standards is essential.
Citation:
The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust & Anr. v. Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead) through LRs. & Ors., [2024] 2 S.C.R. 650; 2024 INSC 121.
RELATED Blog
0 comments