Revenue authorities must align land records with a final Land Tribunal declaration of landlordship.

The petitioners challenged the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 7 February 2019 and the Deputy Commissioner’s revisional order dated 19 December 2019 concerning revenue entries for the subject land.

They relied on a Land Tribunal order dated 14 March 2011, which they said declared them landlords of the property; that order had been upheld in W.P. No. 18123/2011, dismissed on 26 June 2013.

They also relied on statements in the objections filed for respondent No. 6, a partition deed dated 10 March 1987 that did not include the land, and a civil-court decree dated 2 April 2016 restraining respondent No. 5 from interfering with the scheduled property.

Respondent No. 6 opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioners had not challenged the mutation in favour of respondent No. 5 and that he claimed through inheritance.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s and Assistant Commissioner’s orders concerning the revenue entries should be set aside in light of the Land Tribunal’s decision, as upheld by the High Court, and the other material relied on by the petitioners.

2. Whether the Special Tahsildar should be directed to enter the petitioners’ names in the revenue records.

The judgment identifies no specific statute, general legal test, or new precedent as the basis for its decision. It relies on the prior Land Tribunal order declaring the petitioners landlords, which had been upheld in W.P. No. 18123/2011, and considers the parties’ statements, the partition deed, and the civil-court decree in assessing whether the revenue authorities’ findings accorded with the record.

The Court also made clear that the parties’ rights remained subject to the outcome of RSA Nos. 1895/2025 and 28/2021.

The Court concluded that the earlier Tribunal determination, upheld in the prior writ proceeding, supported the petitioners’ claim.

It also treated the statements in respondent No. 6’s objections as indicating that the existing revenue entry was said to be incorrect and that the land was in the petitioners’ possession.

The Court noted that the subject land was not included in the 1987 partition deed and relied on the 2016 civil-court decree restraining respondent No. 5 from interfering with the scheduled property.

Taken together, these matters led the Court to find that the impugned orders were contrary to the record.

It directed the Special Tahsildar to enter the petitioners’ names in the revenue records, if there had been a modification in the mutation concerning the land, within one month of receiving the order.

The Court specified that the parties’ rights remained subject to the decisions in RSA Nos. 1895/2025 and 28/2021.