Dr. Mohammed Ali vs Chief Secretary And Others

The appeal arises out of an order dated 24th June, 2019 passed in a writ petition filed by the appellant. In the said writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Secretary (Revenue), Andaman and Nicobar Administration on 31st July, 2018 in First Revenue Appeal No.01 of 2017 ( Shri Mohammed Rafique vs. The Deputy Commissioner (SA)and others and Shri Sanjay Krishna vs. The Deputy Commissioner (SA) and others).

The appellant-writ petitioner has raised the following points before us.

(a) The Secretary (Revenue), Andaman and Nicobar Administration acted as a revenue court while deciding the appeal pursuant to the direction given by this Court vide its order dated 4th September, 2017. The relevant portion of the order dated 4th September, 2017 is set-out hereunder.

"On perusal of the said records, it reflects that notice was pasted by the Assistant Patwari on 20thJune, 2017 with an endorsement that the party was not present and he had proceeded to mainland. On perusal of the said records it further reflects that a date of hearing was fixed on 21stJune, 2017 and admittedly, it will be revealed that only a day's before the notice was affixed and no prudent person can make an appearance on the very next date when he was in the mainlands. As such, the petitioner was clearly prevented from appearing in the appellate proceedings.

Thus, in view of the above, as the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority and as such, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction upon the said authority to make all best endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of furnishing a copy of this order upon affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and shall pass a reasoned order.

(b) The revenue court entered into the domain of the Civil Court by holding that the appellant/writ petitioner has resorted to falsification, pursuant to which the area of the land in the record of rights has been incorrectly recorded. The appellant-petitioner says that he got the land through a registered gift deed wherein the schedule initially recorded a particular area but at the time of registration, the same has been scored off and the correct area of land has been inserted in hand writing with initials appended thereto. The document has been registered with such hand written correction as to the area of land. The revenue record reflects such corrected area of land as mentioned in the registered deed of gift. In that view of the matter, the question of any falsification does not arise. To show that the hand written corrections were in the registered deed, the appellant produces a copy of the certified copy of the deed of gift. That a part and in any event, according to the appellant, the revenue court could not have gone into the issue of falsification. By doing so, it has transgressed its jurisdiction. Regulation 89 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation of 1966) also does not bestow the revenue court with the jurisdiction to venture into the correctness of registered deeds which has been admittedly executed and registered sometime in 1976 and 1978.

(c) Under the provision of section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, the hand written portions and the initials appended thereto as contained in the deed of gift should be presumed to be correct being a document more than thirty years old and produced from the proper custody i.e. from the appellant/writ petitioner.

(d) The revenue court, at the instance of the subsequent purchasers, has travelled beyond its authority and jurisdiction by attempting to alter the record of rights which is in subsistence for more than thirty years.

(e) It is also the case of the appellant that the original donee did not challenge either the registered deed of gift or the record of rights. It is only the subsequent purchasers i.e. respondents no. 5 and 6 as late as in the year 2012 raised such issues on the plea of being deprived of an access to their property when the vendor(s) of the respondent nos.5 and 6 in a complaint proceeding in 2001 had complained of their egress and ingress having been blocked by a third party which pre-supposes that the property of the respondents No.5 and 6 had a separate access and never had any passage through the property of the appellant.

(f) At the end, the appellant submits that the order of the revenue court is also perverse and requires to be set aside inter alia on the aforesaid ground.

On the other hand, the respondent nos.1 to 4 submits that the revenue court was well within its jurisdiction and competence while it decided the correctness of the revenue records. The revenue court was exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the order passed by the High Court so there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, under Regulation 89 of the said Regulation of 1966, the revenue court can go into the correctness of the record of rights and if it finds that the same is incorrect or improperly recorded, it has the authority and competence to pass necessary orders directing the correction thereof. This action cannot be construed to be an interference with a registered deed as sought to be projected by the appellant/writ petitioner. The said respondents further submits that the points raised by the appellant are unmeritorious and does not require any consideration in details, far less the stay of the order impugned being granted.

The respondent nos.5 and 6, after adopting the submission made on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, submits that there is indeed falsification of records which is apparent from the interpolation made in the body and schedule of the gift deed on the basis whereof the record of rights have been prepared. The interpolation in the gift deed cannot be read as corrections as they are not authenticated. The revenue court has rightly passed the order which does not require any interference.

After considering the rival contention and materials on record, we, prima facie, find that there is an element of substance in the submission made by the appellant in particular to the extent of presumption as to the correctness of hand writing contained in the registered deeds of gift which are admittedly more than thirty years old and produced from the custody of the appellant/writ petitioner, the recording in the record of rights that stood the test for more than thirty years, no dispute being raised by the original donees and the vendors of the respondents no.5 and 6 and that the revenue court while ordering correction of the record of rights could have held that the registered deeds were tainted with falsification. The revenue court whether can do so in exercise of its jurisdiction under Regulation 89 of the said Regulation of 1966 is the question which requires to be decided. The appeal, therefore, requires to be heard.

In order to hear out the appeal an interim stay is required to be granted. In such circumstances, till the issues raised by the appellant are finally decided, there shall be a stay of operation of the order impugned dated 24th June, 2019.

The formalities as to the appeal are dispensed with. No further notice shall be issued to the respondents since they have already entered appearance. The appellant shall prepare sufficient copies of informal paper books within a period of four weeks from date after settling the index with the respondents. Copies of paper books upon being prepared shall, immediately, be served on the respondents. The parties will be at liberty to mention the matter after the paper books are prepared and served.