Madhya Pradesh High Court
Principal Secretary vs Ravi Shankar Sharma on 30 March, 2022
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
F.A.No.802/17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
First Appeal No.802/2017
Between :-
1. Principal Secretary, Govt. of M.P.,
Department of Revenue, Mantralaya,
Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, District-
Bhopal (M.P.).
2. Principal Secretary, Govt. of M.P.,
Public Health & Family Welfare,
Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal, District-Bhopal (M.P.).
3. State of M.P. through Collector,
Office of Collectorate, Umaria,
District-Umaria (M.P.).
4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Office Chandiya,
PS and Post Chandiya, Tehsil-
Chandiya, District-Umariya (M.P.).
5. Chief Medical & Health Officer,
Umariya, Government Hospital,
Umariya, District-Umariya (M.P.).
6. Officer Incharge. Primary Health
Centre Chandiya, Kailadevi Hospital
Chandiya, Post Chandiya, PS
F.A.No.802/17
2
Chandiya, District-Umariya (M.P.)
.........Appellants.
(By Shri C.K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the
appellants).
VERSUS
Ravi Shankar Sharma, son of Shri
Ambika Prasad Sharma, occupation-
Advocate, aged about-50 years,
R/o Ward No.9, Khalesar, PS
Umariya, Tehsil Bandhavgarh,
District-Umariya (M.P.).
........Respondent.
(By Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned Advocate for the respondent).
Whether approved for reporting : (Yes/No).
JUDGMENT
(30.03.2022)
With the consent of both the parties, the matter is finally heard.
1. The appellants / defendants have filed this first appeal under Section 96
of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Dis-
trict Judge, Umariya (MP) in Civil Suit No. 4-A/16, whereby the suit filed by
the respondent / plaintiff namely Ravi Shankar Sharma against the
appellants / defendants for declaration of title, recovery of possession and
F.A.No.802/17
permanent injunction has been allowed and the suit filed by the respondent /
plaintiff has been decreed in his favour according to para 28 of the impugned
judgment.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent / plaintiff filed a
suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction
in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.2307/1ka/1ka/1ka ad-measuring
0.274 hectares situated in village Chandiya, General No.205, Patwari Halka
Chandiya No.9, R.N.M. Chandiya, Tahsil Chandiya, District Umariya (MP),
on the ground that he is the exclusive owner and possession holder of the land
in question. The said land was purchased by him from one Tarabai by
registered sale deed dated 25.06.2009 in total consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-
and thereafter, the possession was handed over to the respondent / plaintiff
and his name was also mutated in the revenue records vide Namantaran Panji
No.21 dated 22.08.2009.
3. Thereafter, Tahsildar, Chandiya conducted demarcation of the land in
question wherein notice was issued on 13.06.2009 and after receiving the said
notice on 14.06.2009 the respondent / plaintiff appeared before the authority
concerned and in his presence, demarcation was completed and final order
was issued on 23.03.2010 and on the said date, for the first time, the
respondent / plaintiff came to know that in the part of the land ad-measuring
0.042 hectare bearing khasra no.2307/1ka/1ka/1ka, Kailodevi Government
Hospital is situated. On 02.12.2009 and 25.06.2010 registered notices were
issued to the appellants / defendants by the respondent / plaintiff and the
F.A.No.802/17
same were served to them but no proceeding was done by the appellants
regarding the land in dispute and the vacant possession was also not handed
over to the plaintiff.
4. Learned trial Court issued notices and consequent upon receiving the
notices, appellants filed their separate written statements denying the
contentions of the plaintiff and it was stated that the Hospital in question is
situated from last sixty years over the disputed land and the plaintiff /
respondent was well aware of the said fact. It was also contended in the
written statement that the respondent had not made it clear that from what
sources, he had purchased the land from Tarabai. It was also not made it clear
that how many sale deed were executed by Tarabai in respect of the land
bearing khasra no. 2307. Tarabai was necessary party but she was not made
party to the suit. It was also stated in the written statements that in the
revenue records from 1959-60, land in question was recorded as Abadi
Hospital land ad-measuring 0.324 hectare. Some entries were recorded in the
revenue records of 1974-75 to 1978-79 and thereafter, 1979-80 to 1983-84. In
the revenue entries of 1983-84 to 1988-89 and 1989-90 to 1992-93 and the
revenue entries are in favour of the government hospital.
5. However, on the basis of rival pleadings, learned trial court framed as
many as six issued and called parties to adduce their evidence. After
recording evidence, learned trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the
plaintiff / respondent and passed the impugned judgment and decree whereby
F.A.No.802/17
the respondent has been declared owner of the land in question and the
appellants herein have been directed to hand over vacant possession.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants / defendants challenged the
impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the same is not in
consonance with law and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Further, learned
Trial Court has erred in holding that the respondent is owner of the land in
question. Learned trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the
hospital in question is situated from last 60 years. In all the revenue entries,
the same has been recorded in favour of the hospital right from 1959.
Resondent / plaintiff in para 12 of his cross examination has admitted the fact
that the Hospital is situated from last sixty years. Ex.P/52 was demolition
report, which has not been appreciated by the trial court. Learned trial Court
ought to have seen that Tarabai, from whom, the land in question was
claimed to be purchased by the respondent, is a necessary party in the present
suit, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent suffered from non-joinder of
the necessary party. Hence, the impugned judgment is contrary to law and
evidence, and the same deserves to be set-aside.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff - respondent herein has supported the
findings of impugned judgment and decree and submitted that learned trial
Court has not committed any illegality and perversity in passing the
impugned judgment and decree which is based on proper appreciation of
pleadings, documents and evidence available on record and submitted that the
F.A.No.802/17
interference is not warranted in the well reasoned impugned judgment and
decree. Further submitted that on 25.06.2009 the plaintiff purchased the land
from the seller Smt. Tarabai Dwivedi Wd/o. Late Satishchandra Brahman and
D/o. Late Bhagwat Prasad Sharma by the registered sale deed (Ex.P/2) and
his name was mutated in the revenue records on 22.08.2009 and Bhu Adhikar
and Rin Pustika (Ex.P/1) was prepared and the same was issued by the
competent authority and thus, he became absolute owner of the land in
dispute. Further submitted that the respondent / plaintiff and Tarabai both
applied for demarcation, whereupon, Revenue case no. 9-A12/09-10 was
registered and notices were issued to all the concerned having land
surrounding the disputed land and in the presence of all the parties concerned
including In-charge Officer, Community Health Centre, Chandiya,
demarcation proceeding was completed after giving full opportunity to all
concerned and on 23.03.2010 the same was approved and a final order
regarding demarcation was passed and then only for the first time, he came to
know that Kailodevi Government Hospital is constructed on an area ad-
measuring 0.042 hectare of the land in dispute owned and possed by the
plaintiff bearing khasra no. 2307/1Ka/1Ka/1Ka, (new no.2307/A/Ka/1) area
0.274 situated at village Chandia, General no. 205 and Patwari Halka No.9.
Appellants no. 3 and 4 have admitted in their written statement that
proceeding of demarcation was done as per the order of the Tahsildar,
Chandiya dated 23.03.2010 which is apparent from para 2 of the impugned
judgment and therefore, the appellants / defendants are bound by their
F.A.No.802/17
admission and on their admission it is contended that the admission of the
appellants / defendants is a best evidence which itself proved that in the
alleged part of private land which was purchased by the respondent / plaintiff,
by way of illegal manner the aforesaid hospital is situated without any
permission, authority or occupying the land from the actual private owner or
it was not acquired by the State Government for any public purpose and thus,
by way of making construction of Kailodevi Government Hospital, the
defendants encroached the said part of the respondent / plaintiff and their
status is established as encroacher and if the illegal possession on the private
land has been found then the such encroachment and illegal possession can be
removed and the learned court below has rightly passed the impugned
judgment and decree for which no interference is warranted.
8. In support of aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the
respondent / plaintiff has placed reliance in State of Haryana v. Mukesh
Kumar and others, (2011) 10 SCC 404. Relevant paras no. 45 & 47 are as
under :-
45. If the protectors of law become the grabbers of the
property (land and building), then, people will be left with
no protection and there would be a total anarchy in the
entire country. It is indeed a very disturbing and dangerous
trend. In our considered view, it must be arrested without
further loss of time in the larger public interest. No
F.A.No.802/17
Government Department, Public Undertaking, and much
less the Police Department should be permitted to perfect
the title of the land or building by invoking the provisions
of adverse possession and grab the property of its own
citizens in the manner that has been done in this case.
47. This Special Leave Petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be paid by the
State of Haryana for filing a totally frivolous petition and
unnecessarily wasting the time of the Court and
demonstrating its evil design of grabbing the properties of
lawful owners in a clandestine manner. The costs be
deposited within four weeks from the date of
pronouncement of this judgment. In this petition, we did
not issue notice to the defendants, therefore, we direct that
the costs be deposited with the National Legal Services
Authority for utilizing the same to enable the poor litigants
to contest their cases.
9. In Muddasani Venkata Narsalah (Dead) through L.Rs. and others
v. Muddasani Sarojana 2016 (2) SCCD 798 (SC); it has been held that
"there was no serious cloud on title of plaintiff so as to force him to seek
relief for declaration of title and even if plaintiff is not placed in possession of
property on strength of his title conferred by way of sale deed in question he
F.A.No.802/17
had right to recover possession. First Appellate court was right in decreeing
the suit."
10. In Prem Singh and others v. Birbal and others 2006 (3) SCCD 1342
(SC) it has been held that there is a presumption that a registered document is
validly executed. A Registered document, prima facie could be valid in law
and onus of proof, could be a person who leads evidence to rebut the
presumption. In the instant case, the respondent no. 1 has not been able to
rebut the said presumption.
11. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the respondent /
plaintiff that the defendants / appellants were in collusion with each other and
intentionally with deliberate manner after the final order of demarcation vide
dated 23.3.2010, the Tahsildar Chandiya entered the illegal possession of M.
P. Government in column no. 12 of khasra of the year 2009-10. While at the
time of purchasing the land, the plaintiff obtained certified copy of Khasra
Panchsala of the year from 2003 to 2009 from Tahsildar, Bandhavgarh on
27.06.2009 and the disputed land is recorded as Kastkari Dhan Chirka Unnat
202 Aare in the aforesaid Khasra Panchsala and Kailodevi Government
Hospital Community Health Centre, Chandiya is not recorded on any part of
the disputed land. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Tahsildar has illegally and
mala fidely recorded the aforesaid Hospital in column no. 12 of khasra of the
year 2009-10 on a part of the disputed land which is ownership and
possession of the plaintiff / respondent. It is settled law that on the basis of
F.A.No.802/17
such illegal khasra entry of possession in some part of the disputed property,
the appellants / defendants have no right over the property of respondent /
plaintiff who became sole owner in view of the registered sale deed executed
by Tara Bai and the plaintiff / respondent is also entitled for a decree of
recovery of possession of area 21x20= 420 Sq. feet. Admittedly, other part of
the land is lying vacant. Even from the documents filed by the defendants it is
crystal clear that the defendants had no right over the property in dispute and
their possession is illegal. From their revenue records also it is crystal clear
that the alleged land is not recorded in the name of M. P. Govt in the revenue
record filed by them and on the contrary, in Ex. D/1 to D/4 the land was
belonging to Ramdas who was father-in-law of Tarabai and after his death,
Tarabai became the sole owner of the disputed land, is quite evident from
Ex.D/5 to Ex.D/8. From time to time Tarabai sold the land to various other
persons whose name are mentioned in the plaint and there is no dispute in
regard to the said persons who had purchased the land earlier from Tarabai
and after that, other remaining land was sold to the respondent / plaintiff by
the registered sale deed, is not questioned anywhere by anyone and the
defendants have no right to raise the objection against the legal right, title and
ownership of the property. Though, the defendants have not filed any counter
plaint or sought any relief in respect of their title or retaining their illegal
possession on the area of disputed land, in which, the alleged old hospital is
situated. The plaintiff has proved his case by the cogent and reliable evidence
and documents and it has come on record that Tarabai became owner of the
F.A.No.802/17
land and the said right was transferred from Ramdas which later-on was
transferred in the name of respondent / plaintiff by the registered sale deed
and the same has been mutated in his name, is quite evident from khasra of
the year 2009-10 (Ex.P/57). The suit is within time and properly valued and
therefore, the learned court below has not committed any illegality and
perversity in deciding all issues framed in para no. 12 of the impugned
judgment in favour of the respondent / plaintiff.
12. In support of his contention he has cited judgments of this Court in the
matter of Alka Gupta (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and others, 2013 RN 176, in
which relevant para nos. 24 and 25 are reproduced as under :-
24. Considering the above legal proposition as held by
this Court from time to time with regard to accrual of
Bhumiswami to be shown in possession of agricultural land
as krishak in Samvat 2007 and consequential conferral of
Bhumiswami rights on them on coming into force of M.P.
Land Revenue Code under section 189. The plaintiff is the
owner of Bhumiswami of disputed land which has been in
the name of Jaswant Singh in the Revenue record as
Bhumiswami after coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue
Code and name of Jaswant Singh has been entered in the
khasra of year 1988-89 Exhibit P-3, appellant has purchased
the land by registered sale deed dated 2.6.1989. Therefore,
F.A.No.802/17
the learned trial Court is not justified in dismissing the suit
without considering the unrebutted documents regarding
khasra entries which were not even questioned by this Court
while passing judgment for remanding the case for
rehearing dated 7.9.2009 passed in FA 135/2004.
25. Therefore, appeal is allowed and setting aside the
impugned judgment and decree the suit of plaintiff is
decreed as under:- (a) Plaintiff is declared owner and
possession holder of the land marked as 'v' in the map
annexed with the plaint and defendants No.1 and 2 have no
right to take possession of said land. (b) The defendants are
further restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff/appellant
Smt. Alka Gupta on the disputed land survey No. 937
marked as 'v' in the map annexed with the plaint. The
defendants/respondents no.1 and 2 shall pay the cost of this
appeal to the appellant/plaintiff and bear their own cost. (c)
The counsel fee shall be calculated according to the rules if
pre-certified. (d) Decree be framed accordingly.
13. He further cited the judgment of this court in the matter of Nanda v.
Poona 1996 RN 382 in which it has been held in para 13 which is as under:-
13. As regards the relief No.2 claiming permanent
injunction, it is luculent that the respondent - defendant has
F.A.No.802/17
no right or interest in the suit land which is held by the
appellant - plaintiff, if not exclusively at least jointly, with
other co-bhoomiswami. It is further established that the
defendant is not only asking ,for half share in the land but
also trying to dispossess the appellant - plaintiff thereof.
Under these circumstances, the possession of the plaintiff
needs to be protected against the defendant who does not
seem to have any better title to the suit property. The legal
position on the point is made more luculent by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of M.K. Setty v. M.V.L. Rao
(1972 SC 2299) in following terms :
"So far as the question of possession is concerned, as
mentioned earlier, both the trial Court and the first appellate
Court have accepted the plaintiff's case that he was in
possession of the suit site ever since he purchased the same
in 1947. This is essentially a finding of fact. That finding is
based on evidence. The High Court, in our opinion, erred in
coming to the conclusion that the possession of the plaintiff
after the sale deed in his favour is not a relevant
circumstance. We are of opinion that it is an extremely
important circumstance. The plaintiff can on the strength of
his possession resist interference from persons who have no
better title than himself to the suit property. Once it is
F.A.No.802/17
accepted, as the trial Court and the first appellate Court
have done, that the plaintiff was in possession of the
property ever since 1947 then his possession has to be
protected as against interference by someone who is not
proved to have a better title than himself to the suit property.
On the findings arrived at by the fact finding Courts as
regards possession, the plaintiff was entitled to the second
relief asked for by him even if he had failed to prove his
title satisfactorily. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court
was not right in interfering with the judgment of the trial
Court as affirmed by the first appellate Court regarding
relief No.2"
14. He further cited judgment of this court in the case of Ranvir Singh v.
State of M.P. and others 1993 RN 25 [kindly see para no.4]; Malti (Smt.)
v. Deviram and others 1993 RN 165 [kindly see para no.15]; Premnarayan
v. Sodrabai and others 1993 RN 420 [kindly see para no.11]; State of M. P
and others vs. Asharam 1996 JLJ, 630 [kindly see para nos. 7 & 18]; Smt.
Dulari v. Chooramani 1997 (II) MPJR 11 [kindly see para no.10].
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgment and the record of the court below and also minutely perused the
judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff. It is found
that the contentions of the appellants / defendants are not sustainable because
F.A.No.802/17
defendant no. 1 i.e. Revenue Department of M.P. Government has not filed
any written statement and not rebutted the pleadings and documents of the
respondent / plaintiff. The main State Agency was defendant no. 1 whose
evidence could be better that how and on what legal basis the alleged hospital
was constructed on the private land or there was any legal order to occupy the
land for public purpose of construction of the Community Health Centre or
against it, any compensation was paid to the actual owner of the land. From
the revenue records vide Ex.P/1 to P/57 it is not gathered that the land was
belonging to the M. P. State Government or it was reserved for the public
purpose and the defendants have not filed any single document nor produced
evidence to the effect that how and on what legal foundation, the alleged
hospital was built up in the private land of Tarabai which is now the land
actually belonging to the plaintiff in compliance of registered sale deed and
the revenue records filed by the plaintiff, i.e. Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/57. The
documents as mentioned in herein-above are so relevant to fortify the findings
of the judgment and decree, in which, it has been held that none of the
documents filed by the defendants are showing the legal right or any
ownership of the appellants / defendants and it is clear as crystal that the
disputed land was the private property and Tarabai had rightly sold the land-
in-dispute in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. The main contention of
appellants / defendants is that in some khasras the entry of Hospital has been
shown but merely on those entries it cannot be held that the appellants /
defendants had any right over the property in dispute and also because the
F.A.No.802/17
defendants have admitted in their evidence that in any revenue records the
name of State of M.P. as owner of the land is not mentioned or there is no
evidence that the land was acquired or it was reserved for the purposes of
building of Community Health Centre in the name of Kailodevi Government
Hospital and in this regard paras 15, 18 & 19 of the defendant no. 4
Bhagirathe Lahare are very clear. This witness has also admitted that notice
under Section 80 of C.P.C. was received but no reply of the said notice was
given by the defendants and further stated that according to Sections 115 and
166 of the M.P.L.R.C.; the Patwari has no right to enter any entry regarding
the possession in the revenue record without the order of legal authority of
Tahsildar and he admitted that in respect of entry in khasra nos. 1969 -70 to
1992-93 the actual record (Sansodhit Panji) has not been filed in the case and
he admitted that in document Ex.D/4 i.e. Namantran Panji No. 70 dated
26.4.1976 the land was mutated in the name of Tarabai and in respect of entry
in column no. 12 of Ex. D/5 to D/11 the order or source of aforesaid entry in
compliance of competent authority and number of revenue case is not
mentioned and in fact, those entries have been made without any order of
competent authority in due process of proceedings He admitted in Ex.D/9, the
head of the land "Dhan Chirka Unnat" is written. Thus, from the admission
in paras 15 to 20 of his deposition, the appeal filed by the appellants /
defendants has no merit at all and the interference by this Court on well
reasoned judgment and decree is not warranted.
F.A.No.802/17
16. Similarly on perusal of statement of witness Lalit Prasad Patel vide
para 4 it is clear that in Ex.D/11 Kailodevi Community Health Centre is not
written and he cannot say anything that the alleged building is situated in
government land or private land and looking to his statement, which goes to
indicate that the defendants have prima facie no case in regard to the such
entry in Ex.D/11 mentioned in illegal manner without any foundation of law
or order of competent authority. Even the said document Ex.D/11 does not
bear the date and signature of any authority. It is apposite to refer the case of
this Court in Ranvir Singh v. State of M.P. and others 1993 RN 25 it has
been held that entry as to unauthorized possession of the person other than
recorded holder made in remarks column of khasra, such entry does not have
any presumptive value. Further in Nanda vs. Poona 1996 RN 382 it has
been held that plaintiff establishing his title to the suit land, defendant having
no title. Defendant should be restrained to interfere in possession of plaintiff.
17. On perusal of record of the court below, it is evident that the
plaintiff has proved his case by cogent and reliable evidence and public
documents i.e. from Ex.P/1 to P/58 and the oral evidence adduced by
respondent / plaintiff Ravi Shankar Sharma and his witness Chandra Prakash
Dwivedi. The learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidence and
documents of both the parties and not committed any illegality in holding that
from any documents the right or any kind of legal possession of the appellants
/ defendants is not proved and the defendants have no right to retain the
illegal possession as an encroachment on the private land of respondent /
F.A.No.802/17
plaintiff while Tarbai had arrived to sell her property according to her wish
which has been done in favour of the plaintiff by way of registered sale deed.
From the cross-examination of DW-1 Lalit Prasad Patel, who admitted that in
the present time, a new hospital has already been constructed and ready to
run. It is necessary to mention here that during the pendency of civil suit, a
new Government Hospital i.e. Community Health Centre, Chandiya has
already been constructed in Khasra no. 2492/A area 2.717 hectare and it was
a separate land allotted to the said new hospital and there is no dispute at all
in respect of new hospital building and even the Chief Medical and Health
Officer, District Umaira issued a letter bearing No. 2017/3025 dated
16/2/2017 for its inauguration and thus, admittedly, at present the new
hospital has already been constructed in aforesaid khasra and after its
inauguration, it is being run and it has been fairly admitted on behalf of the
State that the new hospital has already been constructed and is running
smoothly and the old hospital situated in the disputed land i.e. in area 21x20 =
420 sq. ft. is now useless for any purpose.
18. This court in Awadh Bihari Asati and others v. Shyam Bihari
Asati and others 2004 (1) MPLJ 225 has held that it is well settled that
admission made by the opposite party is the best evidence on which other
party can rely upon. Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble the Apex
court in Ahmedsaheb v. Sayed Ismail, AIR 2012 SC 3320 in which it has
been observed that it is needless to emphasize that admission of a party in the
F.A.No.802/17
proceedings either in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and the same
does not need any further corroboration.
19. In the present case, the situation is same as held in State of
Haryana (supra) wherein it has been observed that if the protectors of law
become the grabbers of the property (land and building), then, people will be
left with no protection and there would be a total anarchy in the entire
country. It is indeed a very disturbing and dangerous trend. In our considered
view, it must be arrested without further loss of time in the larger public
interest. No Government Department, Public Undertaking, and much less the
Police Department should be permitted to perfect the title of the land or
building by invoking the provisions of adverse possession and grab the
property of its own citizens in the manner that has been done in this case.
20. In view of foregoing analysis and keeping in view the law laid
down in the aforesaid judgments, this court does not find any merit in this
appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with other order as to costs.
Interim order dated 24.11.2017 stands vacated.
Accordingly, the decree be drawn up.
Record be sent back to the trial court along with copy of this
order for information and its compliance.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE
F.A.No.802/17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
1 Case Number First Appeal No.802/2017
2 Parties Name Principal Secretary and others vs. Ravi Shankar
Sharma
3 Date of Judgment 30/03/2022
4 Bench Constituted of Hon. Shri Justice Arun Kumar Sharma
5 Judgment delivered by Hon. Shri Justice Arun Kumar Sharma
6 Whether approved for re- YES
porting
7 Name of the counsel for Shri C. K. Mishra, learned Government Advo-
the parties cate for the appellants.
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the re-
spondent.
8 Law Laid down & Signif- Mere entries in the revenue records do not ac-
cant paragraphs numbers
crue any right to the encroacher over the prop-
15 & 18
erty in dispute and it is well settled that the ad-
mission made by the opposite party is the best
evidence on which other party can rely upon
and the same does not need any further cor-
roboration.
(Arun Kumar Sharma)
Judge
JP/-
JITENDRA KUMAR
PAROUHA
2022.03.31 10:23:30 +05'30'
