When boundary of land will not prevail over measurement of land?

The Madras High Court in the case of Dina Malar
Publications, A Tamil Daily, Reptd., by its Partner, R.K.
Krishnamoorthy Vs. The Tiruchirapalli Municipality, Reptd., by its
Executive Authority, The Commr., reported in (1983) 2 MLJ 340
(Madras) has held that in case of doubtful or varying extents in the
documents of title relating to the property, boundaries should be preferred
to the extent. It is held that this principle can be applied only to a case
where there is an element of doubt with reference to the extent of the
area sold. In my view, since the area of the land sold to the defendants
was absolutely clear in the sale deed itself which was duly proved by the
documentary as well as the oral evidence, the question of the boundaries

prevailing over the area of the land mentioned in the sale deed did not
arise.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.209 OF 1994

 Bhujanga Abba Patil  V Dnyanu Ramchandra Powar 

 CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 26th October 2016
Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR 110

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to annex certified copy of record of right along with plaint in suit relating to land?

In fact, as per Section 132(1) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, the plaintiff or applicant in a suit or application should annex to the plaint or application, a certified copy of the record of rights relevant to such land, provided the suit or application is in respect of an agricultural land. Sub-section (2) mandates that if the plaintiff or applicant fails to do so, the court should give some time within which the same will have to be complied with, lest, the plaint will have to be rejected in terms of VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. It is unfortunate that the trial court has not looked into these mandatory provisions found in Section 132 of the Land Revenue Act, which is very much relevant to a suit relating to agricultural land. Therefore, all the civil courts of original jurisdiction are expected to look into whether this mandatory requirement is complied with before the registering the suit.

23. Production of a certified copy of the record of rights or a copy of mutation is essential for the court to know as to whether the land is an agricultural land and whether any acquisition is made by the competent authorities. If such record is produced and it is shown that the land in question is already acquired under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or any other law in force, the question of grant any relief does not arise. Similarly if the agricultural land is already converted into non-agricultural use, and it is depicted in column Nos. 9 and 10 of RTC, the court can call upon the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, provided the relief of declaration of title is sought. If the land is agricultural land assessed to land revenue, then the court fee will be reckoned for valuation under Section 7(2) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Therefore, all the civil courts must put up in the check sheet/slip as to whether certified copy of mutation records or index of lands is produced, and if not, to put up a note about the bar of law contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. read with Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

R.S.A. Nos. 1952/2005 and 220/2006

Decided On: 18.03.2016

 Chennappa Gowda  Vs.  N.C. Rajashekara and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:A.V. Chandrashekara, J.

Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC)622 Kar

Print Page

Whether stamp duty can be assessed on the basis of use of land in future?

A reading of the above judgment would go to show that merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at a later point of time, it may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty.  The nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty.  Therefore, it is clear that the usage of the land in future cannot be a basis for assessing the value.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.09.2014

CORAM 

 MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

C.M.A.No.2109 of 2014 

 and M.P.No.1 of 2014  

M/s.Karpagavinayaga Associates, vs. The Inspector General of Registration of Tamil Nadu cum Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai.

Citation; AIR2015 Madras 7

Print Page

Supreme court : Government not using acquired land, acquisition illegal

The Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment that is going to bring in relief to persons whose land has been acquired by the government and the government has not even started using the same despite years having gone by.

Addressing a bunch of petitions involving a common question of law, the Bench comprising of Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice C. Nagappan said, “we are of the view that physical possession of the land belonging to the appellants have neither been taken by the respondents nor compensation paid to them even though the award was passed on  06.08.2007, and more than five years have lapsed prior to date on which the Act of 2013 came into force. Therefore, the conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are satisfied in this case for allowing the plea of  the  appellants  that  the  land  acquisition proceedings  are  deemed  to  have  lapsed  in  terms  of Section  24(2)  of  the  Act  of  2013.”

The appeals in the Apex Court were filed by persons who continued to have possession of the land despite a notification was issued by the government regarding its acquisition. Importantly, the persons whose land was ‘acquired’ were not paid any compensation till date.

In a similar instance, the Government of Maharashtra had acquired land which belonged to Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co, for laying of railway tracks in Vikhroli, Mumbai. However, even after ten years, the government took no steps to use the land but it changed the land use and made it to build a road. The change in land-use was challenged by Godrej, which claimed that the Government did not have the power to do so. However, the submission failed to find favour with the Bombay High Court and the petition was dismissed.

This judgment will surely bring a sigh of relief to litigants who are battling it out against the Government in courts regarding the same issue.

Supreme Court of India

Karnail Kaur & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 22 January, 2015

Author: V Gowda

Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan

Print Page

FSI/TDR are benefit arising from the land consequently must be held as immovable property.

The expression TDR, is Transfer of Development Right. This enables the FSI to be used on any other plot of land which is generated from some other plot and can be used in terms of the D.C. Regulation in force.From these judgments what appears is that a benefit arising from the land is immovable property. FSI/TDR being a benefit arising from the land, consequently must be held to be immovable property and an Agreement for use of TDR consequently can be specifically enforced, unless it is established that compensation in money would be an adequate relief.

Bombay High Court

Chheda Housing Development ... vs Bibijan Shaikh Farid And Ors. on 15 February, 2007

Equivalent citations: 2007 (3) MhLj 402

Author: F Rebello

Bench: F Rebello, V Tahilramani

Print Page