Pre-Emption Claim Fails on Possession: P&H High Court Rejects Reliance on Illegal Revenue Entries, Restores Trial Court Decree

Case Name: Satpal v. Dilbagh Singh and Others

Date of Judgment: 21.04.2026

Citation: RSA-261-1999

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The High Court held that revenue entries such as Khasra Girdawari, if altered in violation of prescribed procedure, are void and cannot be relied upon to establish possession or tenancy, and in absence of independent evidence, pre-emption claims based on such entries must fail.

Summary: The dispute arose from a suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiffs claiming superior right over land sold by co-sharers to a third party. The plaintiffs asserted possession as tenants and relied primarily on Khasra Girdawari entries to substantiate their claim.

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession or tenancy. However, the first appellate court reversed the findings and decreed the suit, relying on the revenue entries reflecting possession in favour of the plaintiffs.

Before the High Court, it was argued that the appellate court had wrongly relied on revenue entries that were illegally altered without following mandatory procedure. The High Court, after examining the record, found that the Khasra Girdawari entries were indeed changed without notice to affected parties and without compliance with instructions of the Financial Commissioner.

The Court emphasized that such entries are void ab initio and cannot form the basis of any legal right. It further noted that the plaintiffs failed to produce any independent evidence of tenancy, such as rent receipts, agreements, or proof of cultivation. On the contrary, the defendants had established possession through evidence of improvements, including plantation and installation of a tubewell.

The Court also highlighted inconsistencies in the appellate court’s reasoning, noting that despite acknowledging illegality in the revenue entries, it still relied upon them to conclude in favour of the plaintiffs.

Decision: The High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and restored the trial court’s dismissal of the suit. It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish possession or a superior right of pre-emption in accordance with law.