General Land Register Entries Not Conclusive Proof Of Title, Cannot Override Revenue Records Or Natural Justice: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that entries in the General Land Register (GLR) do not carry probative value where such records are prepared without affording an opportunity of hearing to affected persons, and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of title over land.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an eviction order issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, wherein the respondents sought to assert title over the land on the basis of entries in the General Land Register (GLR).
A Bench comprising Justice M. A. Chowdhary observed: “The General Land Register (GLR) is not prepared after issuing any notification calling for objections from the interested persons, as in a case relating to the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the Record of Rights in Land Regulations. There is no wide publicity given, and none is heard before making such entries in the General Land Register (GLR). Where a record is prepared by a public servant and such record affects the persons who have no opportunity to object to the same, such record does not carry any probative value. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with by the public servants in the matter of preparation of any documents, which may have a tendency to adversely affect the rights of private citizens. Only such documents prepared after due notice and hearing of all the concerned shall be deemed to be made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty within the meaning of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The General Land Register (GLR), as such, cannot be said to be prepared and maintained in respect of the rights in or over the land”.
The petitioners challenged an order issued by the Estates Officer under Section 5A of the Public Premises Act, directing them to remove structures from the land in question.
The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of the land on the basis of revenue records and sale deeds, asserting that their rights had earlier been recognised by a civil court decree. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the land formed part of defence land recorded as B-4 category in the General Land Register (GLR), and that such entries constituted conclusive evidence of title.
It was in this context that the Court was required to examine the evidentiary value of entries made in the General Land Register (GLR).
The High Court examined the manner in which the General Land Register is prepared and observed that such entries are not preceded by procedural safeguards. The Court held that any record affecting the rights of individuals must comply with the principles of natural justice.
It further clarified that only those documents which are prepared after due notice and hearing can be treated as official records within the meaning of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
“The same, at best, can be equated to that of the land record relating to survey for revenue purposes and record of rights, … The entries made therein cannot have any effect of superseding the entries in the Survey and Settlement Register and the Record of Rights prepared and maintained under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, … The General Land Register and the entries made therein, at the most, can be construed as a record maintained by the Defence Estate Officer for its own purposes”.
Furthermore, the Court examined the scope of summary eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and held that such a remedy is limited in its application. It observed that “the summary remedy for eviction… can be resorted to… only against the persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any land which is the property of the Government”, and clarified that where a genuine dispute exists, such power cannot be invoked mechanically.
The Court further held that in cases involving a disputed title, the Government cannot act unilaterally. It observed that “if there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government… the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour… and… take recourse to the summary remedy… for evicting the person who is in possession… under a bona fide claim or title.”
Elaborating further, the Court held that summary proceedings are inherently unsuited for adjudicating complex questions of title. It observed: “The summary remedy… is not the kind of legal process which is suited to adjudication of complicated questions of title.” It added that such disputes “must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law” and cannot be resolved through unilateral executive determination.
The Court also emphasised that the nature and duration of possession assume significance in such cases. It observed that a person in long-standing, open possession “can be, prima facie, taken to have a bona fide claim… requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned eviction order, while granting liberty to the respondents to approach the competent civil court to establish title and thereafter initiate proceedings in accordance with law.
Case Title: Ghulam Nabi Bhat & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)