Disputed land cannot be included in hospital survey records without title verification and proper demarcation.

The petitioners challenged the Joint Director of Land Records’ order dated 8 August 2012, its amendment dated 25 September 2012, and the Assistant Director of Land Records’ 1973 order assigning CTS No. 3162 to K.C. General Hospital. They sought exclusion of their claimed properties, Municipal Nos. 6/1, 7/1 and 7/2, from that CTS number and a separate CTS number for their land

In an earlier proceeding, W.P. No. 20523 of 2007, the High Court had directed proper verification of title documents and, if necessary, a survey to determine whether the petitioners’ property fell outside the hospital’s land

The petitioners contended that the authorities had not followed that direction or adequately considered the relevant records, including civil-court decrees, sketches and the 1938 acquisition notification

1. Whether the impugned land-records orders could stand when the authorities had not adequately determined, through consideration of the relevant records and, if necessary, a survey, whether the petitioners’ claimed property lay outside the land belonging to K.C. General Hospital.

2. Whether the matter should be remitted to the Joint Director for fresh consideration in accordance with the earlier High Court direction.

In exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court applied the principle stated in its earlier order in W.P. No. 20523 of 2007: the land-records authority must determine whether the claimed property lies within or beyond the hospital’s property by examining the parties’ title documents and, if necessary, conducting a survey; it cannot reach conclusions unsupported by the inspection record.

The Court’s decision did not determine title to the disputed land; it required the authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with that direction.

The Court found that the materials before it—including the sketches and civil-court records—did not show that the authorities had carried out the demarcation and verification required by the earlier order.

Since the earlier direction required consideration of the parties’ documents and, if necessary, a survey to locate the properties relative to the hospital land, the impugned orders could not be sustained without that proper inquiry. The Court therefore set them aside and directed fresh consideration, without itself deciding the parties’ competing property claims.

The parties were directed to appear before the Joint Director on 15 October 2026; respondents 3 and 4 were directed to produce relevant supporting documents, and the petitioners were permitted to produce further relevant material.