Commissioneer of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

2025:CGHC:59501 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on : 22-8-2025 Delivered on : 08-12-2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 139 of 2011  Gulab Datt Dubey s/o. Late Kedarnath Dubey, aged about 60 years, resident of village Sardi, PS & Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria, (CG). --- Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. 1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG). 2. Chief General Manager, South Coalfields Ltd., Baikunthpur area, Baikunthpur, District Koria (CG). 3. Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Charcha Colliery, District Koria (CG). 4. State of CG through Collector, Koria, District Koria (CG) - Respondents For Appellant. : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. A Sandhya Rao, Advocate. For respondent/State. : Mr. Tarkeshwsar Nande, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) C A V Judgment 1. This Second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') by the plaintiff questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 15-3- 2011 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.

2 44-A/2010 by which learned lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2002. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been described as per their description before the Civil Suit No. 27-A/2002. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 5.5.2016 on the following substantial questions of law :- (I) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court is perverse since on the basis of settled possession the presumption of burden of proof of ownership shifted to the SECL which is denied the ownership by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act? (ii) Whether the lower appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court without appreciating the document of title ie., record of right? Brief Facts as reflected from the plaint averments are that: 4. The plaintiff has filed suit before the Civil Judge, Class 1, Baikunthpur, District Koriya for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, compensation as per market rate for grant of employment to one of his family member as per policy of the SECL and alternatively he has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interference in the suit property mainly contending that: A. The plaintiff is the owner of land measuring 2.02 acres in the Sardi Patwari Halka No. 2, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (hereinafter referred to as suit property). The name of the plaintiff has been recorded as the landowner in the revenue records since long and he is in possession of the suit property. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendant has illegally constructed the stadium on the suit property though plaintiff has never transferred the said property in favour of defendants nor has given any consent, as such they have no right to

3 construct the stadium over the suit land and due to construction of the said stadium on the disputed land, the plaintiff has been deprived of its possession. B. It has also been contended that previously Khasra number of the suit land is 223/7 and after new settlement, the land bearing Khasra No. 449 measuring 2.02 hectares has been allotted to the plaintiff. It has been denied that the land is small forest land and the revenue authorities have no right to allot such land to the plaintiff or the Halka Patwari has illegally transferred the suit property and recorded the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. C. It is also case of the plaintiff that since the defendants deprived the plaintiff to use the land, therefore, a legal notice was sent to the defendants by registered post on 27/08/2001 asking the defendants to do the valuation of suit property, pay the compensation and also provide employment to one of the family member of the plaintiff. The defendant has promised him, but neither action has been taken nor possession has been given to the plaintiff. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendant has given reply to the notice contending that the suit land has wrongly been recorded in the name of the plaintiff though it is a Government land. It is also denied that the Additional Collector in Revenue Case No. 24/3/19/95-96 vide order dated 3-1-1996 has canceled the name of the plaintiff from the suit property and directed for recording the suit land as Government land. It is further contended that the order dated 31-1-1996 passed by the Additional Collector, Koria, Baikunthpur has already set aside by order dated 21-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner, therefore, the suit property belongs to the plaintiff.

4 5. The defendant has filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiff mainly contending that: A. No allotment order has been given in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, entries in the revenue records are illegal and the defendant has initiated proceeding for acquisition before the Collector who was Land Acquisition Officer, Baikunthpur for construction of stadium in the year 1992-93. Accordingly in the said land Khasra No. 449/1, 249/6 area 0.02 hectares was also included, as such the said land bearing Khasra No. 449 was never recorded in the name of the plaintiff. Accordingly, they have constructed the stadium at Charcha with the assistance of the State Government which is being utilized by the public purpose. It has also been contended that notification for acquisition of land was published in the MP Gazette on 3-6-1994 by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in favour of the respondent/company and since no publication was made in the Government Gazette, therefore, the said proposal was canceled and thereafter further proceeding was initiated and the order was passed on 3- 1-1996 by canceling the name of the plaintiff and it has been recorded as Government land. B. It has also been contended that in the year 1997 a proposal was sent to the Land Acquisition Officer for acquiring land area 15.39 hectares in which the land bearing Khasra No. 449/ area 2.02 hectares is also included. It has been further contended that in Revenue Appeal filed before the Commissioner Bilaspur who vide its order dated 21-3-1999 has set aside the order dated 31-1-1996 passed by the Additional Collector, Koria, Baikunthpur on technical ground and on that basis of that no right has been accrued to the plaintiff though the name of the plaintiff has been

5 recorded in the revenue records. It has also been contended that since no title of document has been shown by the plaintiff, therefore, mutation is void and ab initio and would pray for dismissal of the suit. It has also been contended that earlier the land bearing Khasra No. 223/7 is recorded as a small forest in the revenue records and after settlement new number has been allotted, therefore, this land does not deserve to be allotted, as such revenue authority has no right to allot the land to the plaintiff. Therefore, entry in the revenue record is illegal and would pray for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed six issues out of which issue Nos. 2, 4 and 6 are relevant, therefore, they are extracted below. S2-& D;k oknh xzke ljMh ds Hkwfe [k-ua- 449 jdck 2-02 dk Lokeh gS\ 4-& D;k oknh ds ifjokj dk ,d lnL; izfroknh ls jkstxkj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ jkstxkj izkIr u djk ikus dh fLFkfr esa okn Hkwfe dk fjDr dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 6-& D;k okn Hkwfe NksVk >kM+ dk taxy gS\ gkW rks izHkkoA** 7. To substantiate his case the plaintiff has exhibited documents ie., Kistband Katauni (Ex.P/1), Khasra Panchsala (Ex./P/2), Adhikar Abhilekh (Ex.P/3), Map (Ex.P/4), Kistband Katauni (Ex.P/5 to P/7), Kistband Katauni 2000-2001 (Ex.P/8), Kistband Katauni 1988-89 (Ex.P/9), Kistband Katauni 1989-2000 (Ex.P/10), Khasra Panchsala (Ex.P/11 to Ex.P/14), copy of the order passed by the High Court of CG (Ex.P/15) and copy of the order passed by the Commissioner (Ex.P16). In order to substantiate his case the plaintiff has examined Gulab Dubey (PW/1), Ransai (PW/2) and Shyam Bihari (PW/3). 8. Defendant, in order to substantiate his case has exhibited the documents ie., Kistband Katauni (Ex.D/1), copy of the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur (Ex.D/2), Kistband Katauni (Ex.P/3), Khasra Panchasala (Ex.D/4), Khasra Panchaala 1994-95 (Ex.P/5), list of renumbering (Ex.D/6)

6 and Khasra Panchsala (Ex.D/7) and examined B.K. Dutta (DW/1), Regional Revenue Officer, SECL Charcha. 9. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record has decreed the suit. Learned trial Court while deciding issue No.2 has recorded its finding that the plaintiff is title owner of the suit property and on the basis of revenue records it has recorded its finding that since there is no right of defendant No.1 over the suit property and the suit land belongs to the Government land, as such, the beneficiary will be State Government, but neither the State Government has filed any written statement nor any rebuttal has been made to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant No. 2 cannot deny the title of the plaintiff over the suit property and on the basis of the revenue records learned trial Court has held that the plaintiff is title owner of the suit property and accordingly, issue No.2 has been answered in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has decided issue Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of plaintiff by directing the defendant to provide employment to one of the family members of the plaintiff and give compensation to plaintiff. 10. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred an Appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which was registered as First Appeal No. 44 of 2010, mainly contending that the suit property is the Government land and the plaintiff has not produced any source of title to obtain title over the suit property and even any document allotting the lease by the State Government in favour of the plaintiff has also been produced and the learned trial Court has committed illegality in decreeing the suit merely on the basis of revenue records which does not confer any right over the suit property. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside.

7 11. Learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15-3-2011 has allowed the first appeal. The First Appellate Court while deciding the point of determination framed by it whether the plaintiff is able to prove his title over the suit property, has recorded its finding in para 16 that the plaintiff has stated that this land was allotted to him in the year 1965 but no document has been produced by him, therefore, merely on the basis of oral evidence it cannot be held that the lease has been allotted in their favour. It has also recorded its finding that though the plaintiff has taken the stand that it was misplaced, but he can obtain second copy of the lease and no efforts have been made by the plaintiff to place on record the document relating to the title. The learned first appellate Court has also recorded its finding that mutation entries in the revenue records do not confer any title of the plaintiff over the suit property. Thus, learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal before this Court. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the learned First Appellate Court has utterly failed to appreciate that in the revenue records, the name of the appellant has been recorded and entry of the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records has been continued for more than 30 years, as such it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no title over the suit property. He would further submit that though Patta was misplaced and could not be found, therefore, it could not be produced before the learned trial Court but the entries of previous record were produced before the learned trial Court showing continuous entry in the name of plaintiff which is itself evidence and title and possession of the plaintiff. He would further submit that as per provisions of

8 Section 117 of the Land Revenue Code, all the entries made in the revenue records are presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. Thus, he would further submit that since it is a public document under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, therefore, presumption of its correctness and genuineness should be drawn in favour of the plaintiff. He would further submit that neither the State has filed written statement nor contested the case before the learned trial Court whereas the State should have established before the court below that the name of the plaintiff has been recorded without following procedure which the State has not established, as such the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court suffers from perversity or illegality and would pray that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court be answered in favour of the plaintiff. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/defendants opposing the aforesaid submissions would submit that it is well settled position of law that revenue records do not confer any title over the suit property, therefore, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly reversed the finding after appreciating the evidence and material on record, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed and would pray for dismissal of the second appeal. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of both the courts below with utmost circumspection. Finding and discussion on substantial questions of law: 15. To appreciate the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, it is expedient for this Court to go through the evidence and documents exhibited before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff was examined before the learned trial Court as PW/1 and he has exhibited the documents of revenue records ie., Kistband Kataunim and Kashra Panchasala from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/14 and the order dated 21-3-1999 (Ex.P/16) but he has not filed any documents

9 regarding title of the suit property and in the cross examination PW/1 Gulab Dubey has categorically admitted in paragraph 32 of the evidence that he has not submitted lease of the suit property and voluntarily stated that the Patta was misplaced and he has also stated that he has not made any effort to obtain second copy of Patta as it is not required for him.

He has also stated

that he is not aware whether the document of lease is necessary, He has also stated that his two sons have not claimed any title over the suit property. He has stated that he cannot say that when the suit property was given to him and he voluntarily stated that in the year 1975-76 the suit property was given to him, but he has not produced any document of the suit property. 16. PW/2 Ransai was examined and in examination-in-chief he has also supported the case of the plaintiff. In the cross examination he has stated that he is not aware about revenue case or granting of lease to him. The other witness PW/3 Shyam Bihari was examined and in examination-in chief he has stated that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. He has also admitted that the stadium was constructed over the suit property 25-30 years ago when this witness was examined before the trial Court on 17-9-2007. He has also admitted that whether any procedure for mutation in the name of the plaintiff has been done in the village or not is not known to him. 17. DW/1 B.K. Datta in examination-in-chief has reiterated the stand taken in the written statement. In the cross examination nothing was brought on record to rebut the contentions made by this witness in the examination-in-chief. He has stated that they have not moved an application for deleting the name of the plaintiff before any court but he has voluntarily stated that proceeding was conducted by the State Government. This witness has denied that the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff and voluntarily stated that it is the Government land and the stadium was constructed with consent of the State

10 Government. He has also admitted that the State Government has given consent to construct the stadium, but he has not produced any document regarding consent given by the State Government to construct the stadium. 18. To appreciate substantial question of law, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under. “110. When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner”. 19. From the evidence brought on record before the learned trial Court. It is quite vivid that the plaintiff has not produced any document for establishing his title over the suit property whereas in case of suit for declaration of title, burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff and as per Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, burden of proof is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. Thus, from perusal of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, it is quite vivid that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in shifting the burden of proof ignoring the provisions of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, according to which burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove that the suit property in which the Stadium has been constructed belongs to him not belongs to the defendant. Provisions of Section 110 of the Evidence Act is subject matter of examination before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal s/o Takarmal Mohnani vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, MP Bhopal, reported in 1988) 3 SCC 588 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court as under. “A Panchnama was prepared. The Department found that the assessee was the owner. Section 110 of the Evidence Act is material in this respect and the High Court relied on the same which stipulates that when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the onus of proving that he is not the owner, is on the person who

11 affirms that he is not the owner. In other words, it follows from well settled principle of law that normally, unless contrary is established, title always follows possession. In the facts of this case, indubitably, possession of the wrist-watches was found with the petitioner. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence, far less discharged the onus of proving that the wrist-watches in question did not belong to the petitioner. Hence, the High Court held, and in our opinion rightly, that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar, 94 ITR 616 where on difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held the question whether on the evidence established, the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that the petitioner had actually invested moneys for purchasing the gold in question, the inference of the ownership of the gold in the petitioner in that case rested upon circumstantial evidence. There also gold was seized from a motor launch belonging to the petitioner in that case. There a contention was raised that the provision in section 110 of the Evidence Act where a person was found in possession of anything, the onus of proving that he was not the owner was on the person who affirmed that he was not the owner, was incorrect and inapplicable to taxation proceedings. This contention was rejected. The High Court of Bombay held that what was meant by saying that the Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under the Act was that the rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act, was not applicable but that did not mean that the taxing authorities were desirous in invoking the principles of the Act in proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so. Secondly, all that section 110 of the Evidence Act does is that it embodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence which could be attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfy its condition. 20. Again, considering the provisions of Section 110 of the Evidence Act,1872, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of the State of Punjab and others vs. Bhagwantpal Singh alias Bhagwant Singh (deceased) through Lrs reported in 2024 INSC 518 has observed as under. “30. It is settled law that in a suit for possession, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. As per Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof as to ownership of a property lies on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession. Section 110 of Evidence Act is produced as follows: "110.Burden of proof as to ownership- When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to

12 be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner." 31. This Court had summarized the provision in Chuharmal v. CIT (supra) as follows: "6. Section 110 of the Evidence Act is material in this respect and the High Court relied on the same which stipulates that when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the onus of proving that he is not the owner, is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. In other words, it follows from well settled principle of law that normally, unless contrary is established, title always follows possession." 32. In view of the clear finding that the hospital is functioning on the suit land since 1958, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have wrongly shifted the proof of ownership on the Appellant, whereas it lay on the Respondent by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act”. 21. Thus, the learned first appellate Court has rightly shifted the burden upon the plaintiff to prove title which he miserably failed to prove it, as such, substantial questions of law No.1 framed by this Court is answered against the plaintiff. Finding and discussion on Substantial Question No.2: 22. The finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the plaintiff has not produced by document of title to claim ownership of the suit property and the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal as revenue records are only the records of fiscal and no title is confirmed on the basis of revenue records. Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has observed that the revenue records do not confer any right but it is only fiscal purpose. The plaintiff in his evidence has categorically admitted that he has not produced any title of the suit property, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in reversing the judgment and decree does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court. 23. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that mutation of records would not divest the owner of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court has not committed any irregularity

13 or illegality in disbelieving the entries in the revenue record. This view of the Court is fortified by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K. Patkar reported in 2023 INSC 1009 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in paragraphs 11 to 15, 21 and 22 as under: 11. It is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title. 12. This Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and Ors. held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question. 13. This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh & Ors vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs and Ors. wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. 14. In itendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. this Court after considering a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle of law as follows: “6. ***mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.” 15. We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by LRs. and Ors.5 wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary.” 21. It is also curious to note that the plaintiff has placed on record endorsements issued by the Commissioner in favour of four other tenants, but has failed to produce one in his own vendor’s name. We cannot help but take an adverse view of the same against the plaintiff, since it only goes towards making denser the cloud which has been cast on the plaintiff’s title. 22. Contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that through the record of rights the plaintiff has established his title by a preponderance of probabilities is not sustainable. As noted above, the plaintiff failed to produce a single document of title in respect of the suit property. In a dispute with respect to determination of title, merely pointing out the lacunae in the defendant’s title would not suffice. Having instituted the suit for declaration, the burden of proof rested on the shoulders of the plaintiff to reasonably establish the probability of better title, which the plaintiff in the present case, has manifestly failed to do.

14 24. Therefore, the substantial question of law No. 2 framed by this Court is answered against the appellant/plaintiff by recording the finding that plaintiff cannot be said to be title holder of the suit land on the basis of entry made in the records of right, in absence of any document of title in respect of the suit property. 25. Accordingly, the second appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 26. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.12.08 18:27:36 +0530