Ownership Rights of Immovable Properties Can't be Decided Casually: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that ownership rights of an immovable property cannot be decided casually or on the basis of conjectures, surmises or mere guesswork.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and J K Maheshwari remanded to Uttarakhand High Court a batch of civil appeals related to ownership of suit lands for fresh adjudication on the merits, after noting several compelling circumstances, including subsequent sale and exponential increase in the value of land.

The matter before the court related to the ownership of land measuring 183 bigha 8 biswa, which is equivalent to 28.56 acres of land, in Haripur village, in Haldwani tehsil of Nainital district.

The disputes began on June 20, 1924 when one John Vaughn, son of Charles Vaughn, obtained a lease of the suit land from the erstwhile colonial rulers through the Secretary of State for India in Council for 30 years on payment of rent as agreed between the parties. One Manohar Lal purchased the suit land in 1947 and revenue entries were made in his favour. Thereafter, ‘bhumidhar’ certificates were also issued and subsequently, multiple proceedings were initiated before the revenue and civil authorities.

“We are conscious of the fact that these appeals have been pending before this court for more than 15 years. In normal circumstances, we would have ventured to decide the issues ourselves but in light of the observations and dearth of appropriate records, we are constrained to hold that ownership rights in respect of an immovable property cannot be decided casually. We are actually left with no other option but to remand these appeals back to the High Court for effective adjudication on merits,” the bench said.

The bench said our hands are further tied because of the fact that the ownership of certain portions of the suit land has apparently changed hands on account of subsequent sale and further the value of the suit land has increased exponentially during the entire period of litigation and the relevant parties have also done certain valuable developments.

“Any decision now cannot be based on conjectures and surmises or on the basis of mere guesswork. Hence, we are reluctant to give a final opinion on the matter until the court is satisfied on the basis of the entirety of documents which showcase how the ownership or possessory rights were created on the suit land,” the bench said.

The court requested the High Court to decide the matters at the earliest, preferably within a period of upcoming 12 months.

It also suggested requisitioning of all original records, including revenue entries as well as that of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Nainital.

The court also directed the state government to produce entire records and notifications before the High Court and render assistance in the early disposal of these matters.

“It is made clear that casual findings/observations made by Revenue Authorities or the Civil Court shall not be accepted at their face value unless the High Court is satisfied on a thorough inspection of the original or certified copies of the relevant record,” the bench said, directing the parties to maintain status quo until the matters are decided afresh by the High Court.