Karnataka HC restores Defence land records for Air Force taxi track, citing 1943 acquisition and compensation records over a later private claim.

The dispute concerned 3 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 33, Sonnappanahalli.

The Union of India claimed the land had been acquired in 1943 for the Air Force Station, Yelahanka, and relied on acquisition and compensation records, a 1944 survey report, the village map and the Military Land Register (MLR)

The respondent claimed through an agreement of sale dated 8 October 1995, a specific-performance decree in O.S. No. 606/2008 and a court-executed sale deed dated 29 January 2015

The Assistant Commissioner set aside the respondent’s mutation and directed entry of the Defence Department’s name; the Deputy Commissioner affirmed that decision

The Single Judge quashed both orders, reasoning principally that Sy. No. 33 was not identified in the 1943 notification, while leaving title open for civil adjudication

The Union and Defence authorities appealed.

1. Whether the appellants had made out grounds to interfere with the Single Judge’s order setting aside the revenue authorities’ decisions

The Court considered Sections 136(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, governing the revenue proceedings, and Section 128 of that Act, which the Single Judge had found relevant to the revenue entries.

It applied the principle nemo dat quod non habet: a transferor cannot convey a better title than the transferor possesses.

Relying on Sections 74(1) and 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Court treated the MLR as a public document and invoked a presumption of regularity and correctness for its entries.

It also relied on Union of India v. Robert Zomawia Street, (2014) 6 SCC 707, for the evidentiary significance attributed to official land-register entries;

Union of India v. S. Narasimhulu Naidu, Civil Appeal No. 2049/2013, decided 27 August 2021, concerning the presumption attached to MLR entries;

and M. Venkatesh v. Commissioner, BDA, (2015) 17 SCC 1, concerning the legal effect of sales made after a preliminary acquisition notification.

The Court held that the acquisition question could not be resolved solely by noting that “Sy. No. 33” did not appear in the 1943 notification.

It found that the notification’s boundaries, the 1943 letter, the 1944 survey report identifying Sy. No. 33 and the extent used for the taxi track, the compensation record, the village map and the MLR formed a connected body of contemporaneous evidence supporting the Defence authorities’ identification of the land.

It considered that the Single Judge had not adequately weighed those records against the later private transactions and revenue entries.

The Court further reasoned that the 2008 decree and 2015 court-executed sale deed could not bind the Defence authorities, who were not parties to the suit, or convey a title that the vendors did not possess.

It also considered the respondent’s later sale transactions and challenge to those transactions relevant to the assessment of his conduct.

It set aside the Single Judge’s orders dated 21 and 22 July 2026 and restored the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 18 July 2022 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 5 August 2023.