Revenue records do not establish title; compensation requires proof of ownership.

The appellant-State challenged the judgment and award dated 05.06.2018 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in LA(Ref) No. 17 of 2016, whereby the compensation payable to respondent No. 1 was enhanced.

The State contended that the Land Acquisition Judge had neither framed an issue regarding the claimant’s ownership nor required him to establish title through title deeds or other admissible evidence; according to the State, the claimant had relied only on khatians, which could not by themselves establish title.

Respondent No. 1 submitted that the khatians had been produced and that the relevant documents establishing his claim could be placed before the trial court.

It was also stated that his share of the compensation had already been released.

Upon examining the record and considering similar earlier matters, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge for reconsideration after framing an issue regarding title and ownership.

Whether the claimant had established lawful ownership or title over the acquired land so as to be entitled to receive compensation from the State?

Whether revenue records, including khatians, were sufficient to prove ownership or title to the acquired land?

Whether the judgment and award enhancing compensation could be sustained without adjudicating the claimant’s title through appropriate issues and evidence?

The Court applied the principle that a claimant seeking compensation for acquired land must establish lawful ownership or entitlement to the land through appropriate title documents and evidence.

It relied on Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao & Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 450, which held that revenue records, jamabandi entries, mutation entries and tax receipts serve primarily fiscal purposes and do not constitute documents of title or confer ownership; mutation neither creates nor extinguishes title, although revenue records may raise a limited presumption regarding possession.

The Court further held that where ownership is disputed or insufficiently established, the Land Acquisition Judge must frame a specific issue on title and provide the parties an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence.

The High Court found that the compensation award had been enhanced without a proper determination of whether respondent No. 1 was the lawful owner of the acquired land.

Since the claimant’s case was based substantially on khatians, and such revenue records could not independently establish title under the principle stated in Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao, the trial court was required to examine title through appropriate documents and evidence.

The Court emphasized that a genuine landowner who loses land through acquisition must be properly compensated, but a person who fails to prove ownership cannot receive compensation from the public exchequer.

Because the necessary title-related issue had not been framed or adjudicated, the impugned judgment could not be sustained and required remand for a fresh determination.

It set aside the judgment and award dated 05.06.2018 in LA(Ref) No. 17 of 2016 and remanded the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, with directions to frame an issue regarding title deeds and ownership, allow both parties to adduce evidence, and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of, along with any pending applications.