Executive Instructions and Title Verification Proceedings Cannot Negate Title or Overrule Registered Sale Deeds Without Civil Court Declaration

The petitioner purchased land (Khata 295, Plot 3566, Village Shahpur) via a registered sale deed in 2008 from a vendor with long-standing jamabandi

In 2010, the land was notified for acquisition to widen National Highway-II

Despite the petitioner’s possession and rent payments since 2008, the authorities initiated 'Swamitya Satyapan' (Title Verification) under Government Resolution No. 925(6) dated 11.11.2014

On 24.07.2021, the District Collector rejected the petitioner’s raiyati claim, classifying the land as 'Gairmajarua Malik' (Government land) based on Cadastral Survey (C.S.) Khatiyan records, thereby denying compensation

The petitioner challenged this rejection and the subsequent recommendation dated 12.01.2022

1. Whether the State authorities can unilaterally cancel a jamabandi or negate a registered sale deed through executive instructions to deny land acquisition compensation

2. Whether the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by determining title in a summary proceeding

The court applied the principle that mutation entries/jamabandi are for fiscal purposes and neither create nor extinguish title, as established in Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186

It relied heavily on Maya Devi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2014) 3 PLJR 584, which held that if the State intends to cancel a long-standing jamabandi or claim title over settled land, it must seek a declaration from a Civil Court; it cannot simply evict the occupant or deny compensation

The court also protected the petitioner's rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India

The court reasoned that the petitioner holds a validly executed registered sale deed from 2008 and has been in peaceful possession

It found that the executive authorities, by relying on Resolution No. 925 (2014), bypassed established revenue laws and judicial precedents

The court emphasized that a sale deed cannot be negated by executive instructions unless set aside by a competent Civil Court

It noted that even if the land was recorded as 'Gairmajarua Malik' in ancient records, the State admitted the petitioner had been in possession for thirty years

Therefore, the summary rejection of the 'raiyati' claim during the acquisition process was legally unsustainable as the State's only remedy to dispute title is through a civil suit

The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders dated 24.07.2021 and 12.01.2022. It directed the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad, to reconsider the petitioner's raiyati status afresh within two weeks, acknowledging his possession and sale deed