A patta holder has no right to retain government land beyond the area expressly allotted.

The petitioner held a residential patta granted in 1996 over 0.05 decimals of Government land forming part of Khasra No. 623/1. Earlier challenges to the patta had been rejected or remanded for verification, and the patta was upheld in subsequent revenue proceedings

In 2024, the Tahsildar issued a notice requiring the petitioner to remove alleged encroachments, including construction and occupation said to exceed the patta area. The State maintained that the petitioner occupied more land than had been allotted and that the land was recorded as “Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle”

The petitioner challenged the eviction notice and related proceedings, seeking protection from coercive action

Whether the petitioner could retain possession of land beyond the 0.05 decimals covered by his patta

Whether the impugned notice and proceedings could be set aside insofar as they concerned alleged occupation beyond the patta area

A patta confers rights only over the area specifically granted; it does not authorize occupation of additional land

The Court relied on Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, which directs States to provide for the eviction, after notice and a brief hearing, of unauthorised occupants of community lands; long occupation or expenditure on construction does not by itself justify regularisation, subject to exceptional cases identified in that decision

The Court read the notice as addressing alleged occupation and construction in excess of the area granted under the patta, rather than displacing the petitioner from the land covered by the grant. It held that the earlier proceedings, which had accepted the patta, did not give the petitioner a right to occupy additional land.

Applying the principle that unauthorised occupation of public land is not protected merely by its duration, the Court concluded that any occupation beyond the patta area could be removed. It left the merits of any claim to the excess land open for the revenue authorities to consider under the applicable policy or law

It permitted the petitioner to apply to the competent revenue authorities for allotment or settlement of the excess land, clarifying that it expressed no opinion on the merits of such a claim; the petition was disposed of accordingly