Revenue Records or Khatians Do Not Confer Title and Cannot Be Sole Basis for Awarding Compensation

The appellant (Border Roads Organization) challenged a judgment and award dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, which enhanced compensation for land acquired from the respondents

The appellant contended that the respondents failed to prove ownership through title deeds, relying solely on khatians (revenue records), which the appellant argued are insufficient to establish legal title

The matter reached the High Court of Tripura as an appeal against the enhancement order

1. Whether the claimants/respondents established their legal title and ownership over the subject land to justify the receipt of compensation

2. Whether revenue records, such as khatians, are sufficient to prove ownership against government claims in land acquisition proceedings

The court primarily applied the legal principle that revenue records (mutation entries, khatians, or tax receipts) do not establish title or ownership, as they serve only fiscal purposes

Supreme Court precedent Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao and Ors. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (2026 INSC 450), which held that revenue entries/Jamabandis do not create or extinguish title and have no presumptive value regarding ownership against the State

The Court observed that the lower court (L.A. Judge) failed to frame any specific issue regarding the claimants' title or require the production of registered title deeds

The Court reasoned that while a land-owner must be appropriately compensated for acquisition, an unauthorized person cannot receive a "bonanza" from the government exchequer without proving ownership through oral or documentary evidence beyond mere revenue entries

By applying the Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao doctrine, the Court determined that the khatians relied upon by the respondents were insufficient to prove title as they are merely for fiscal purposes and could potentially be fabricated

Consequently, the Court found the trial court's judgment to be legally flawed for failing to adjudicate the underlying question of ownership

The matter was remanded to the Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, with directions to frame a specific issue on the point of title deeds to decide ownership, allow both parties to adduce evidence, and decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law

The appeal and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly