Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
59. Referring various decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court, learned judge concluded that the entries in Setwar and Vasul Baqui and Khasra Pahani are prepared under the statute and hence these entries constitute title. The F learned Judge observed as under: "We are unable to understand as to why the plaintiffs cannot placed reliance on entries in the sethwar, vasulbaki ·and khasra pahani which are exhibited as G Ex. B 19 (bunch of pleaded). This is a very peculiar case where duplicated survey numbers are pleaded by the State. It is not possible to digest as to what has happened to the land in survey No.613 (suit land) since it was specifically in existence with Raja Shivraj H c SUPREME; COURT REPOR~S Dharmavanth Bahadur as pattadar and Khatadar up to the year 1954-55 .. Even if Nadergul village is assumed as Jagirvillage or lnam village, the entire land in Nadergul village must have the same consequence i.e. getting vested in the State. But the written statement shows that Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur land are separately shown in separate series of survey numbers from 1 to 194 with different owners. It is not the case of the state that it has granted by assignment of the land in Nadergul village. The~e is no possibility of a single survey number i.e. sy. No. 613 (suit land) getting covered either under the Hyderabad Abolition of Jagir Regulation or the AP. (T.A.)Abolition of lnamsAct 1955. At any rate the identity of land in Sy. No.613 (suit land) as found in Ex.A.10 touch plan and Exd.A9 village map cannot undergo any change whatsoever. Ownership may change from one p,erson to the other but the land cannot change its location and identity when described with reference a survey number. Hence, we are unable to agree with the state that Ex. A.5 and A 6 cannot be taken as title documents. Hence, we hold that Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur was the pattadar, khatadar and owner of the suit land and since the plaintiffs are the successors of Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur, they are the successors to claim title of the suit land. We reject the contention of the state that the lands of Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur are recorded separately in a new series of survey numbers i.e. 1 to 194 since there is no iota of evidence about the creation or existence of such survey numbers. It is now possible to comprehend that survey numbers would be changed when it_ relates to the title of the person. The object of conducting survey of land is to maintain the identity of the land and hence the endorsement in the khasra pahani that lands of Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur are shown separately is of no intelligible GOVERNMENTOFANDHRAPRADESHTHR. PRINCIPAL 751 SECRETARYv. PRATAP KARAN [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] meaning. The evidence of OW 1 and DW2 has not thrown A any light on these aspects. It is to be remembered that the State has pleaded that the lands of Raja Shivraj · Dharmavanth Bahadur are recorded in separate series of survey numbers from 1 to 194 (written statement para 4) and hence the burden is upon the state to prove the B same and explain as to what had happened to the lands of Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur. No such attempt has been made by the State and hence we are constrained to reject the contention of the state after the khasra pahani, Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur's C land in Sy. No.613 of Nadergul village is shown separately in a fresh series of survey numbers i.e. 1 to 1.94."
60. On the issue whether the Nadergul Village is a Jagir village, the Court held:- "From the documentary evidence addu,ced by the State, there is no basis to construe that Nadergul village is a Jagir village. We have earlier observed that if a village happens to be a jagir village, all the survey numbers of E the village should have the same effect by virtue of the Jagir Abolition Law. The state has contended that there are private patta lands in Nadergul village in other survey numbers. Hence it is absurd to appreciate that survey No.613 of Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur alone can be construed as a Jagir. Above all, the state has not chosen to partify its pleading by adducing the best evidence i.e. any notification showing that the suit lands are jagir lands. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the suit land is not Jagir land and hence it cannot be G claimed by the State."
61. On the issue of maintainability of suit, the learned Judge finally held that:- "We have already noticed the judgment of the Nazim c Atiyat, which has rejected computation amount for List Ill villages in Ex.B1. Hence there is nothing improper in filing the present suit for declaration of title. It is settled law that a claim for declaration of title never gets extinguished by efflux of time. Even under Article 65 of the limitation Act, 1963 the Limitation runs only from the date on which the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs. Hence we hold that the plaintiffs are not disqualified from filing the suit even if they had approached the NazimAtiyat under Ex. B1 proceedings."
62. On these findings, the learned judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
63. The second learned Judge, Justice R. Kantha Rao, 0 delivered a separate judgment, disagreeing with all the findings recorded by Justice B. Prakash Rao. Learned Judge firstly held that the suit for declaration of title as owners of the property, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove their title of ownership. The learned Judge referring various judgments rendered by E this Court and the High Court came to the conclusion that the holder of General Power of Attorney (GPA) is not competent to give evidence. The holder of GPA cannot be substituted for the said purpose. Learned Judge further noticed that the legal heirs of Raja Siva raj Bahadur participated in the lnam Enquiry F before the Nizam Atiyat to declare their rights and fix the commutation in respect of Jagir lands. The Nizam Atiyat by judgment dated 20.07 .1958 (Ex. B-1) passed order for payment of commutation amount in respect of Jagir villages, Some of the plaintiffs preferred appeal against the judgment of the G Nazim Atiyat to Board of Revenue and this appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, some of the plaintiffs filed the writ petition, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh disposal. Further, the appeal was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution. According to H the learned Judge, therefore the order passed by the Appellate GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL 753 SECRETARYv. PRATAP KARAN [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] Authority dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution will A operate as res judicata.
64. The learned Judge also disagreed with the another Judge on the finding that when a person is recorded as Pattedar and Khatadar he has to be considered to be the owner B of the property and there is no necessity of proving the source of the acquisition of the land. According to the learned Judge, mere marking of documents such as Ex.A-5, certified copy of Sethwar relating to Sy.No.613 of Nadergul Village, Ex.A.6, certified copy of the Vasulbaki Register of Sy.No.613 of C Nadergul village and Exs.A-12 toA-14- certified copies of pahanies where name of Raja Sivaraj Bahadur is found, the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of title. The learned Judge is of the view that plaintiffs failed to adduce any positive evidence to prove title and possession of the suit property. Accordingly, he by his judgment dismissed the appeal.
65. It is pertinent to mention here that on perusal" of two separate judgments written by learned Judges of the Division Bench, they have not agreed on any point of facts or point of E law rather they have decided the appeal by expressing their separate views. This may be the reason when the file was placed before the Chief Justice, he referred the matter to a third Judge for deciding the appeal after considering the different views given by the two learned Judges in the separate judgments written and signed by them.
66. Justice A. Gopal Reddy, before whom the appeal was referred and finally placed for hearing, has considered the two judgments delivered by the differing Judges. The third Judge considered in detail the judgment given by Justice B. Prakash Rao, who extensively dealt with the entire facts of the case and the evidence brought on record. After· discussing the pleadings of the parties in detail, the learned Judge framed the following eight points for consideration: "a) Whether the plaintiffs have established the claim for declaration of title in respect of the suit land. b) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit lands for claiming permanent injunction. c) whether the suit lands are Jagir lands as contested by the defendants? d) Whether the relief of declaration of title can be granted in the absence of truth of flow of title? e) Whether non filing of ceiling declaration can have c the effect of waiver of title? n Whether the entries in the revenue records can be basis for grant of a decree of declaration of title? g) Whether the suit is barred by limitation and whether the plaintiff's are estopped from filing the suit since they had earlier claimed for award of computation amount contending that suit lands are Jagir lands? h) Whether the judgment of the trial court warrants any interference as regards the findings recorded there?"
67. At the very outset, the learned Judge noticed the admission made in the written statement that in Khasra pahani of 1954-55 late Raja Sivaraj Dharmavanth Bahadur was F recorded as Pattadar and Khatadar of S.No.613 admeasuring AC.373-22. It has further been admitted that in the said Khasra Pahani survey numbers the name of Raja Sivaraj Bahadur are rec~orded separately in a new series of Survey Numbers from 1 to 194. Further in Ex.12(a), which is a Khasra Pahani, it is G recorded as 'cultivated self and it is mentioned as lnam Dastagardan (suspense account) and in which Pattadar's name is mentioned as ''Sivaraju llaka" and survey numbers of Siva Raju Bahadur are written separately. The learned Judge further noticed that even in pahani for the year 1960-61 of H Nadergul Village covered under Ex.12(b), which is mentioned GOVERNMENTOFANDHRAPRADESHTHR. PRINCIPAL 755 SECRETARYv. PRATAP KARAN [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] at serial no.2, Survey No.613 Sivaraju llaka. The learned Judge A further came to the following finding: "In pahani pathrika for the year 1949-50 covered under Ex.19(a), S.No.613 is shown as Kancha Siva Raj Dastagardan admeasuring AC.323-22. In the pahani 8 patrika for the year 1950-51 covered under Ex.B-19, S.No.613 admeasuring Ac.373-22 is classified as "Kancha Sevaraj Munzabta Confiscated'', and name of Khathadar is mentioned as Kancha Severaj. In th Khsra Pahani for the year 1954-55 covered under Ex.B-19(a), c it was shown as S.No.119 and extent is shown asAc.355- 12 guntas and column No.6 was shown as Sirkari and land name is Khas Sagu (cultivated self). D.Ws.1 and 2, who entered into the witness box have not clarified as to how two different Khasra pahanies were maintained, D namely, in the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, Raja Sivaraj Dharmavanth Bahadur has been recorded as Pattadar and Khatadar of S.No.613 admeasuring 373- 22, another Khasra Pahani covered under Ex.B-19(a), S.No.119 of Nadergul is admeasuring Ac.355-12 guntas E which is Sirkari but Sivaraj llaka. It is admitted by the defendants that total survey numbers in Nadergul village are 875. The village map which was marked by the plaintiffs shows original 875 survey numbers and the new series of 1 to 194 survey numbers. It is admitted in the F first written statement filed by the fifth defendant that suit land was confiscated to the State and how the same was confiscated to the State and under what proceedings the land was confiscated has not be stated. In the amended written statement, State has taken several alternative and inconsistent defences by contending that Nadergul village is lnam Dastagardan. Even if We accept that is lnam Dastagardan, it is only a suspense account and rights of the parties have to be determined under lnams H Abolition Act. There is no proof that the land has been treated as government land and confiscated to the State. Once i~ is recorded that S. No.119 admeasuring Ac.1- 20 guntas belongs to Gadd am Mallaiah, how the same survey Numbei i.e. 119 can be recorded as having an extent of Ac.355-12 guntas, shown it as government land. D.Ws.1 and 2 have not properly explained the same in their evidence."
68. The learned Judge on the issue with regard toAtiyat c proceedings in respect of Jagir land came to the following finding: "It is relevant to note here, Baga Nadergul village has . been mentioned in List-Ill under the heading Tahrir Pawanni Jagirs under Serial No.8. Therefore, no commutation amount has been fixed for list Ill villages, which is subject to further enquiry with regard to the claim, if any filed by sub-grants to prove their possession. By any stretch of imagination, the heirs of Raja Shivaraj Dharmmavanth Bahadur were awarded commutation amount to foreclose their rights under the above proceedings. Even if the appeals were dismissed after remand order passed by the High Court, the commutation amount, if any awarded under Ex.B-2 is only for the lands which are not covered by proceedings under Ex. B-1. Further, as per Khasra Pahani, the land revenue account of late Raja was Khata No.3. The said fact has been admitted in the written statement. Whereas Ex.B- 2 and B-27 are in respect of Khata No.6, which should obviously be different from the revenue account of late Raja i.e. Khata No.3. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that Exs.B-2 and 8-27 do not pertain to the lands of which late Raja was Khatadar/pattadar. Further, it was categorically stated in NB(1) of Ex.B-2 that the award will be implemented on the payments side after GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL 757 SECRETARYv. PRATAP KARAN [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] carefully checking and reconciling the number of jagir A villages as furnished by the estate authorities with the list recently received from theAtiyat Department, so as to keep the commutation sum of villages shown in list No. I I I attached to Nazim Saheb Atiyat's L. No.1884 dt. 27-2-1958 in reserve as ordered by the Board of B Revenue in their letter No. U/993/58/Atiyat dt.12-4-1958. So, the amounts so mentioned are not conclusive but were ordered to keep in reserve until rights of the parties are decided in separate proceedings. Therefore, it is not open for the Government to contend that the C properties are confiscated or vest in the Government in the light of the commutation award passed by the Office of the Jagir Administrator, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-Deccan dt.30.3.1959 (Exs.B-2 and B-27)."
69. The learned Judge has further taken notice of the fact that of late the State Government, now, is claiming property by rounding off the names of pattadars and others. in the revenue records without referring to any proceedings, which fact has been observed by one of the decision in Syed Ahmad Hasan case, 2011(4)ALT 262 (DB).
70. Finally, the learned Judge came to the following conclusion: "From the above discussion and the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, it is to be held that the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that the late Raja was pattadar/khatadar of the land covered by G S.No.613 admeasuring 373-22 guntas in the Khasra Pahani, the presumption backward/forward can be applied in his favour or in favour of his heirs that he or they continued to be pattadar(s). Unless the State proves that the said land has been confiscated or vest in the H c State under Jagir Abolition Act on abolition of jagirs or for non filin~ of declaration, the property vest in the Government under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings), 1973, mere mentioning "Sarkari" in subsequent pahanies or giving duplication S.No.119, title of the original owner will not vanish and it continues to be vest with them. In Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 covered under Ex.12(a), when it is stated that S.No.613 has been recorded as "Self Cultivation Dastagardan" and numbers of the Sivaraj Bahadur has been written separately and the same has also been shown as S.No.119 under Ex.12(b). Therefore, late Raja or his heirs continue(s) to be pattadar(s) forthe corresponding survey number and on changing also, but the same cannot become the g_overnment property as contended by the learned Advocate General. Further, the identity of land in S.No.613, suit land, as found in Ex.A-10-touch plan and Ex.A-9-village map cannot undergo any change whatsoever and ownership may change from one person to the other but the location of land and its identity with reference to survey number cannot be changed. Therefore, there is no further necessity for the plaintiffs to seek declaration of their title except to seek correction of record of rights recording the names of the heirs of late Raja i.e. the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration for correction of the entries in the record of rights recording the names of the legal heirs of late Raja and also injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession."
71. The learned third Judge, therefore, agreed with the finding recorded by one of the Judge, ~iustice B. Prakash Rao and upheld the conclusion arrived at by him and consequently H allowed the appeal. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL 759 SECRETARYv. PRATAP KARAN [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]
72. We have meticulously perused the pleadings of the A parties, and the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by them. We have also gone through the findings record.ed by the trial court, the findings recorded in two separate judgments passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and finally the impugned judgment passed by the third learned Judge of_the High Court. The third learned Judge to whom the matter was referred has agreed with and upheld the finding recorded by one of the judges of the Division Bench and allowed the appeal decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents. c
73. The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit for correction and rectification of record of right in respect of S.No.613 measuring 373.22 gur:tas of land which was recorded in the name of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the same alleged to have been illegally rounded up by the Revenue D authorities and a new S.No.119 was created in favour of the State without any notice and legal proceedings. 7 4. It has not been disputed by the appellant-State that the suit land comprised within S.No.613 measuring 373.22 E guntas was held and possessed by Raja Shiv Raj Bahadur who was the Khatadar and Pattadar of S. No.613 of Village Nadergul. It is also not in dispute that succession of the Estate of Late Raja Shiv Raj Bahadur was declared by a Royal Firman of the Nizam in favour of Raja Dhiraj Karan, Dharam Karan, Mehboob Karan and the heirs of Manohar Raj vide Firman dated 4th Ramzan 1359 Fasli. On the death of Raja the succession of the Estate was granted by the Royal Firman in favour of the sons of the two brothers and by subsequent Firman in favour of Pratap Karan, who is one of the plaintiffs. 75. It has been admitted in the written statement that in the Setwar and Vasool Baqui, the name of Raja was recorded as the owner of the said S.No.613. Subsequently, in the Khasra Pahani which is the basic record of right prepared by H [2015) 12 S.C.R. A the Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh for the year 1954-55 the name of Raja Shiv Raj Bahadurwas entered as the absolute owner and possessor ofthe suit land. Hence, the title of the owner supported by various documents including the Khasra Pahani, which is a document of title has been proved beyond B doubt. 76. Recently, in the case of Collector vs. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695, this Court (one of us-Hon'ble C. Nagappan, J. was a party) had considered a similar question where the C challenge to the title of pattadar by the Government was negatived and this court held :- "13. Consequent to the merger of Hyderabad State with India in 1948 the Jagirs were abolished by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli. "Khasra pahani" is the basic record-of-rights prepared by the Board of Revenue Andhra Pradesh in the year 1954-1955. It was gazetted under Regulation 4 oftheA.P. (TelanganaArea) Record- of-Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 F. As per Regulation 13 any entry in the said record-of-rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. Tfie said regulation of 1358 F was in vogue till it was repealed by the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which came into force on15-8-1978. In the 2nd Edn. (1997) of The Law Lexicon by P. RamanathaAiyar (at p. 1053) "Khasra" is described as follows: "Khasra.-Khasra is a register recording the incidents of a tenure and is a historical record. Khasra would serve the purpose of a deed of title, when there is no other title deed." 77. One of the Judges of the Division Bench after considering the facts of the case and discussing elaborately H the oral and documentary evidence recorded a finding with GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRAPRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL 761 ~ECRETARYv. PRATAP KARAN [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] regard to the title in respect of S.No.613 in favour of the A plaintiffs. The third Judge in the impugned judgement has also . discussed the evidence and finally upheld the finding recorded by one of the Judges of the Division Bench. We do not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the two judges of the High Court on the issue of title of the plaintiffs B predecessors over the suit land. 78. Besides the above. it has not been denied by the appellant that there is an endorsement in the said Khasra Pahani, Survey No.613 admeasuring AC 373.22 is recorded C as "cultivated self' and in column 7 it is mentioned that lnam Dastagardan (suspense account), Exhibit 12(a). The appellant-State have totally failed to prove as to under which proceeding and under what circumstances, the suit land was suddenly shown as Government land. No proceeding D whatsoever was initiated before the alleged confiscation of the suit land. Admittedly, Survey No.119 admeasuring 1.20 guntas belonged to one Gaddam Mallaiah which is evident from the revenue record. We have failed to understand as to how another Survey No.119 came into existence showing entire suit land to the extent of AC 355.12 guntas treating it as Government land. 79. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that under the Jagir Abolition Regulation the suit land is vested in the State. Consequently, the matter was referred to Atiyat proceeding for commutation of compensation it was only because the sanat has not proved the claim for compensation in respect of suit land was rejected. 80. We are unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the appellant. From perusal of exhibit B-1 which is the judgment of Nizam Atiyat dated 20.1.1958 it is evident that the mass is comprised of Jagir, Rusums and lnarn land. The High Court in the impugned H A judgment has rightly observed:- c "lt is relevant t~ note here, Baga Nadergul village has been mentioned in List-Ill under the heading Tahrir Pawanni Jagirs under Serial No.8. Therefore, no commutation amount has been fixed for list Ill villages, which is subject to further enquiry with regard to the claim, if any filed by sub-grants to prove their possession. By any stretch of imagination, the heirs of Raja Shivaraj Dharmmavanth Bahadur were awarded commutation amount to foreclose their rights under the above proceedings. Even if the appeals were dismissed after remand order passed by the High Court, the commutation amount, if any awarded under Ex.B-2 is only / for the lands which are not covered by proceedings under Ex.B-1. Further, as per Khasra Pahani, the land revenue account of late Raja was Khata No.3. The said fact has been admitted in the written statement. Whereas Ex.B- 2 and B-27 are in respect of Khata No.6, which should obviously be different from the revenue account df late Raja i.e. Khata No.3. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that Exs.B-2 and B-27 do not pertain to the lands of which late Raja was Khatadar/pattadar. Further, it was categorically stated in NB(1) of Ex.B-2 that the award will be implemented on the payments side after carefully checking and reconciling the number of jagir villages as furnished by the estate authorities with the list recently received from theAtiyat Department, so as to keep the commutation sum of villages shown in list No.Ill attached to Nazim Saheb Atiyat's L.No.1884 dt. 27-2-1958 in reserve as ordered by the Board of Revenue in their letterNo.U/993/58/Atiyat dt.12-4-1958. So, the amounts so mentioned are not conclusive but were ordered to keep in reserve until rights of the parties are decided in separate proceedings. Therefore, it is ·GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL 763 SECRETARYv. PRATAP KARAN [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] not open for fhe Government to contend that the A properties are confiscated or vest in the Government in the light of the commutation award passed by the Office of the Jagir Administrator, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-Deccan dt.30.3.1959 (Exs.B-2 and B-27)." 81. The learned Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment has taken judicial notice of the fact that the Government, now-a-days is claiming property by rounding off the names of Pattadars and others in the Revenue Records c without referring to any proceedings, which fact has also been observed in a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Syed Ahmad Hasan, 2011 (4) ALT 262. 82. Both the trial court and the learned Judge of the Division Bench, who affirmed the finding of the trial Court have failed to take into consideration the relevant provision of the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli and held that by the said Regulation, all Jagir land became the E Government land. Sections 17 and 18 of the Jagir Abolition Regulation read as under:- "17. Home-farms.- (1) Nothing in this Regulation shall affect the home farm (seri Khudkasht) of a Jagirdaror Hissedarwhich, subject to any law for the time being in force, he shall continue to hold, – (a) where the village in which the farm is situate has been brought under survey and settlement whether G before or after the appointed day, in accordance with the terms recorded at the time of such survey and settlement; (b) for so long as the village has not been brought under H c survey and settlement, in accordance with the terms and conditions prevailing immediately before the appointed day. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1) the extent and boundaries of the home-farm of a Jagirdar or Hissedar shall be such as the Jagir Administrator may by order determine: Provided that no forest or waste land shall be included in any home-farm. 18. Personal property and liabilities not affected.- Nothing in this Regulation shall affect, – (a) the personal property of a Jagirdar or Hissedar or any property other than the Jagir held by a Jagirdar on behalf of the Hissedar, or (b) any liability of a Jagirdar or Hissedar in respect of any loan taken from Government." 83. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it is E clear that such land which has been brought under survey settlement and record of right has been prepared in the name of the land owner in respect of self cultivated land shall have no effect on the provisions of Jagir Abolition Regulations. 84. On the finding recorded by the Trial Court on the issue of possession, the plaintiff produced evidence stating that for irrigation purpose on the la rid, 18 bore-wells have been dug, some bore-wells were dug-up in 1980 and some in 1990s and 5 during the last five years. It has also come in evidence that G the plaintiff obtains three service connections for the bore-wells in the name of the deponent. The Trial Court took notice of the fact that the defendant State has admitted that both Sethwar and Wasool Baki do contain the name of Shivraj Bahadur, the H truth of these documents and the correctness of entries therein GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL 765 SECRETARYv. PRATAP KARAN [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] are not in dispute. The only contention of the State was that A these are the records long prior to independence and subsequently there have been several changes and different revenue entries have been made and there is no consistency in the Revenue entries recognizing the title of the plaintiffs- predecessors interest. 85. The Trial Court considered the decision in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Keshav Ram and Ors., 1997 (AIR) SC 2181 which was relied upon by the learned Advocate General, the Trial Court held thatthe decision of the C Supreme Court (Supra) was not considered by the High Court in the earlier decisions. The Trial Court erroneously held that except entries made in Sethwar and Wasool Baqui, there are no subsequent Revenue entries much less consistent entries to corroborate the entries in Sethwar and Wasool Baqui to D establish title. The Trial Court recorded incorrect finding that the subsequent Revenue entries do not contain the name of Raja Shivraj Bahadur either pattadar/khatadar and in all the records instead of his name the land was either shown as Kancha-Sarkari or land confiscated by the government. The E Trial Court further erroneously.held that even in the khasra- pahani of the year 1954-55 which is an important Revenue Record, the name of Raja Shivraj Bahadur was not shown as khatadar/ patadar. 86. In the decision relied upon by the Trial Court (AIR 1997 SC 2181 ), the fact was that the land originally belonged to the plaintiff but in the year 1950, the name of the State was recorded in the settlement paper as the owner. The plaintiff applied for necessary corrections of the record and ultimately G in a suit, the Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The matter finally came to this Court. Allowing the appeal, this Court held thatsince the name of the State was recorded to be the owner of the land in the Record of right A prepared in the year 1949-50, the Court could not have passed a decree for the change of Revenue record. 87. In the instant case, the fact is totally reverse. The Record of right duly prepared in the year 1954-55, the name B of the original owner Raja Shivraj Bahadur was recorded in Revenue Record as the owner which is evident from khasra- pahani. All of a sudden without any Survey Settlement proceeding and in absence of any proceeding for preparation of record of right, the name of the plaintiff was removed and C substituted with the name of the State. Hence, the aforesaid decision of this Court rather supports the case of the plaintiff. 88. Admittedly, Nadergul Village was brought under Survey and Settlement in the Revenue record of right including D khasra-pahani land which were in original possession of Raja Shivraj Bahadurwas given corresponding Survey No. 613 and in the remark column recorded as "Self Cultivation Dastagardan" and the successor of Raja, namely, the plaintiff continued possession of the suit land. Similarly, one Gaddam E Mallaiya was allotted Survey No. 119 in respect of his land which is undisputedly come in his possession. 89. Considering all the documentary evidences together viz., Exh.P-2 Firman confirming the successor of Late Raja F Dhiraj Karan in favour of Pratap Karan, one of the plaintiffs, Exh.P-5 Sethwarfor Survey No.613, Exh. P-8 Vasool Baqui, substantiate the case of the plaintiff-respondents that the Revenue Records were not correctly and properly maintained. Further, the Touch Plan copies of Survey No.613 and 119 and. G certified copies of Pahani in respect of the suit land show the incorrect maintenance of Revenue Records. Certified copies of Pahani for the year 1949-58 and 2000-01 of Survey No.119 make it clear that there is duplication of survey numbers. Indisputably, Survey No.613 was suddenly rounded off stating H that the property was separately shown. There is no explanation GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL 767 SECRETARYv. PRATAP KARAN [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] or evidence from the side of the appellants as to under which A proceeding and by which order the Revenue Record was changed. So far as the claim of confiscation of the land by the Government is concerned no proceeding was initiated by any competent authority under any law before making entries in the Revenue Records that land was confiscated. For doing B the same there must be a proceeding and order of confiscation of the land which has not been brought on record. Further, there is no document to show that in pursuance of confiscation entries the person in occupation was dispossessed and the · record is maintained showing dispossession and taking C possession of the land by the Government. In the survey settlement proceedings there cannot be duplication in survey numbers. We have failed to understand as to how a duplicate Survey No.119 came into existence and the land of Survey D t-.Jo.613 was shown in that duplicate survey No.119. The learned District Judge while deciding the injunction applicati9n has recorded admission of the Government that the pla1ntiffs are in possession of the suit land. On the basis of admission by the appellant and the Revenue Record the Court gave E interim protection by granting a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 90. In the instant case, although the Trial Court decided the Interlocutory Application for injunction not only on consideration of documentary evidence, but also admission F made by the appellant State admitting possession of the plaintiff over the suit land but in the final judgment, no finding recorded with regard to possession of the suit land except that these documents do not prove title of the plaintiff on the G suit land. 91. One of the learned Judges of the Division Bench on consideration of all the documentary evidence and the Revenue Records recorded the finding in favour of the plaintiff. The (2015] 12 S.C.R. A said finding of the learned judges has been affirmed and upheld by the learned third Judge of the High Court and allowed the appeal and set aside the finding of the Trial Court. 92. We have given our thoughtful consideration on the B finding recorded by the learned Judges of the Division Bench and finding recorded by the third learned Judge to whom the matter was referred for passing the final judgment. In our view, there is no material on the record to reverse the finding of the two learned Judges of the High Court. c 93. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in C.A. No.2963 of 2013 and the same is dismissed. 94. So far as Ciyil Appeal No.2964 of 2013 filed by the 0 appellant-Corporation is concerned, admittedly the appellant- State, despite pendency of appeal in the High Court, transferre.d the suit land in favour of the Corporation. The said transfer is not only hit by /is pendens but also appears to be not bonafide. Be that as it may, consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal E of the State being C.A.No.2963 of 2013, the appeal being C.A.No.2964 of 2013 filed by the Corporation is also dismissed. Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.