In Brief
The plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellant owned adjoining agricultural land. After a 1991 re-survey showed the defendant's land had increased by over one hectare, the plaintiff obtained remeasurement by the Sub Divisional Officer, which restored the original boundary. The plaintiff then sued for possession, claiming the defendant had encroached with wire-fencing. The civil court decreed the suit; both appellate courts upheld this. The Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal, holding that maps prepared by Revenue authorities remain admissible evidence despite subsequent reversal of the order directing their preparation, and that civil courts retain jurisdiction to hear land possession suits under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.