Mere Revenue Entries Can’t Create Tenancy Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Trial Court Decree in 20-Year Possession Claim

Case Name: Roop Devi and Another v. Dhanna Ram

Date of Judgment: 26 May 2026

Citation: RSA-1885-2001

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that revenue entries showing possession do not by themselves establish tenancy rights or lawful possession, particularly when the person claiming protection fails to explain how he entered into possession or the legal basis for such occupation. The Court further held that entries in Khasra Girdawari carry a presumption of continuity and cannot be altered without lawful authority. Where the foundation of the altered revenue entries itself remains unexplained, a claim for injunction based solely on such entries cannot succeed.

Summary: The dispute concerned agricultural land measuring 8 kanals situated in Village Samrala, Pathankot. The plaintiff claimed that he had been cultivating the land for more than twenty years as a tenant under the original owner, Ram Kishan, and that after Ram Kishan’s death, the defendants inherited the property. Alleging attempts to forcibly dispossess him, the plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining interference with his possession.

The defendants denied the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship and disputed the plaintiff’s claim of possession. They asserted that the revenue entries relied upon by the plaintiff were erroneous and had already been corrected by the Assistant Collector II Grade after due inquiry and spot inspection. According to them, the plaintiff was neither in possession nor entitled to any protection against the true owners.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish possession over the suit property at the relevant time and had consequently failed to prove any enforceable cause of action. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision and granted an injunction, relying primarily upon Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari entries showing the plaintiff’s possession from 1986 to 1993.

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the First Appellate Court had ignored the legal effect of the correction order passed by the Assistant Collector II Grade and had erroneously relied upon revenue entries without examining how those entries had originated. It was further contended that the plaintiff had never established the source of his possession, the existence of tenancy, or any lawful right to remain on the land.

The High Court examined the revenue record and found that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was recorded as owner in possession up to the Kharif 1986 harvest. The plaintiff’s name appeared only from the subsequent Rabi 1987 harvest. Significantly, there was no material on record showing how or under what lawful authority this change in the Khasra Girdawari had been effected.

The Court observed that under the Punjab/Haryana Land Records framework, a Khasra Girdawari entry cannot be altered arbitrarily. Any change must be supported by a speaking order of the competent revenue authority or a valid Rapat Roznamcha entry. Since the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence explaining the basis of the altered entries, the very foundation of his claim remained unproven.

Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company, the Court reiterated that revenue records are not documents of title and merely raise a rebuttable presumption regarding possession. Such entries cannot by themselves confer legal rights when the underlying basis for the entry is doubtful.

The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Mukhtiar Singh v. Bua Ditta, reiterating that a person seeking protection of possession must establish a lawful basis for occupying the property. Courts do not ordinarily grant injunctions to protect possession that is unexplained, unauthorized, or lacking legal origin.

According to the Court, the First Appellate Court committed a serious error by treating the revenue entries as conclusive proof of possession while ignoring the presumption attached to the earlier entries and the correction orders passed by the revenue authorities. It further failed to examine the legality of the plaintiff’s entry into possession or the absence of evidence proving tenancy.

The High Court concluded that the findings of the First Appellate Court were based on a misreading of evidence and a misapplication of settled principles governing revenue records and possessory injunctions. The Trial Court’s decision dismissing the suit was therefore found to be legally correct.

Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, and restored the Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the suit. The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish lawful possession, tenancy rights, or the legal basis of the altered revenue entries relied upon by him.