Rival claimants

Although a registered deed reflecting transfer of certain rights qua a property had sanctity attached to it regarding its genuineness, and strong evidence was required to cast aspersions on its correctness but it could not be given preference over an un-registered deed vide which physical possession of the property had also been given

Section 50(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 also provided that a registered document regarding transfer of certain rights in an immovable property would have effect against every un-registered document relating to the same property and conferring the same rights in the property as shown in the registered document but the law had also provided certain exceptions

Where a person in favour of whom an un-registered deed qua transfer of certain rights in property had been executed, also had possession of the property, he could legally protect his rights in the property and even a registered deed subsequent in time would not affect his/her rights

First proviso to S. 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 provided that such rights in the property could be protected under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Claimant/wife in whose favour property was transferred vide unregistered sale in lieu of dower was also given possession of the same

Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also confirmed the signatures of her husband/transferor on the said deed

Irrespective of the fact that the rival claimants/petitioners had a registered gift deed in their favour, the same was subsequent in time to the unregistered deed and petitioners had no possession of the property, thus, they could not get any advantage of the same

Besides, the petitioners had claimed the gift in their favour vide the registered deed but the basic ingredients of gift i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession had not been proved by them

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner, in the year 1984, relying on Notification No.5086-69/1683-CL-III dated 1.6.1970 and Notification No. 1488-71/1217-CL-III dated 26-4-1971 applied for grant of alternate land in lieu of the land that was allotted to him in 1957

Petitioner's application was accepted and he was considered eligible for grant of alternate land

Respondent challenged allotment of alternate land to petitioner on the grounds that land which was originally allotted to the petitioner in 1957 was surrendered by him and no longer remained under his cultivation; that thereafter, the same was leased out to the respondent for a period of five years under the scheme, which lease was extended up to 1983, therefore, respondent was eligible for the grant of proprietary rights in alternate land and not the petitioner

Validity

In terms of Notification dated 1.6.1970 bearing No 5086-69/1683-CL-III and Notification dated 26.04.1971 bearing No. 1488-71/1217-CL-III alternate land was to be given only where the terms and conditions on which temporary leases were granted had been fulfilled by the lessee but the allotted lands were situated either within the proximity of a municipality or a town or where it was within one mile of a railway station, or for some reason the allottees were dispossessed by the government and their lands were utilized for some permanent scheme

Only such allottees, in terms of the two said notifications, were to be accommodated in alternate areas with the same rights as they would have exercised in the lands originally allotted to them

Revenue forums below had not examined the present case from the perspective of the applicability of the two said notifications, therefore, it was appropriate to remand the case to the Board of Revenue, which shall decide whether the petitioner or the respondent was entitled to the grant of alternate land in terms of the notifications or the land rightly reverted back to the State

Appeal was allowed accordingly.