Fake Tenancy Created During Litigation? P&H High Court Rejects Pre-Emption Claim Based on Manipulated Khasra Girdawari Entries

Case Name: Hari Singh (Since Deceased) Through His LRs and Another v. Jai Bhagwan and Another

Date of Judgment: 29 April 2026

Citation: RSA-2914-2001

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that revenue entries altered during pendency of litigation, particularly on the basis of compromise proceedings relating to a different khasra number, cannot conclusively establish tenancy for claiming a preferential right of pre-emption. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove tenancy over the suit land on the date of sale and consequently dismissed the suit for pre-emption.

Summary: The dispute arose from a suit filed by Jai Bhagwan seeking possession by way of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The plaintiff claimed a superior right of pre-emption on the ground that he was a tenant in possession of the suit land on the date of sale and that the vendees were complete strangers to the holding.

The plaintiff also alleged that the sale consideration reflected in the registered sale deed was fictitious and inflated, asserting that the actual market value of the property was substantially lower. On this basis, he sought possession of the land upon payment of the alleged real value.

The defendants contested the suit by denying the plaintiff’s status as a tenant and asserted that the sale transaction had been executed lawfully with valid consideration. According to the defendants, the suit was frivolous and devoid of merit.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that he possessed a superior right of pre-emption as tenant.

Allowing the Regular Second Appeal, the High Court closely scrutinized the basis on which the plaintiff claimed tenancy. The Court noted that heavy reliance had been placed by the Courts below on altered Khasra Girdawari entries that were corrected during pendency of the civil suit pursuant to an order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade.

However, the High Court found that the correction proceedings were themselves suspicious and legally insufficient. The Court observed that the correction order related to a completely different khasra number than the one forming subject matter of the disputed sale transaction. Moreover, the correction had been carried out solely on the basis of a compromise with one co-owner, namely Banarasi.

The Court further held that even otherwise, alterations made in revenue records during pendency of litigation cannot bind the Civil Court, which must independently evaluate evidence regarding possession and tenancy. Reliance was placed upon Gurnam Singh v. Jagjit Singh and Nanha v. Partap Singh @ Chuhria to reiterate this settled principle.

The High Court observed that the attempt to secure retrospective effect to the corrected revenue entries appeared to be a calculated effort to manufacture evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim of tenancy. According to the Court, the so-called compromise was merely a device to create a façade of tenancy so as to invoke a preferential right of pre-emption.

The Court emphasized that tenancy on the date of sale is a sine qua non for maintaining a claim of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Since the plaintiff failed to independently establish his tenancy over the suit land on the relevant date, the entire foundation of the pre-emption claim collapsed.

Holding that both the Courts below committed patent error in relying upon manipulated and legally unreliable revenue entries, the High Court set aside the concurrent judgments and dismissed the suit.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, and dismissed the suit for possession by way of pre-emption after holding that the plaintiff failed to prove tenancy over the suit land on the date of sale.