In Brief
In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the father of the appellants acquired Asami (tenant) and Sirdari (landowner) rights over a plot of land in Uttarakhand that had escheated to the State when its owner died without heirs. The court held that although his name appeared in revenue records, an Assistant Record Officer's order during record operation had deleted his name as surreptitiously recorded. The court ruled that only genuine entries in revenue records can confer rights; fraudulent or surreptitious entries cannot. Since the predecessor had admitted in 1956 that he was releasing possession of the escheated land except for 4 Nali retained by him (which did not include the disputed plot), he could not claim rights over it. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.