In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that state rights conferred by a valid property deed remain intact, even if revenue records aren’t updated promptly. This assertion came during a case involving land donated to Punjab for a Veterinary Hospital in 1958. Despite the transferor’s heirs appearing in the revenue records, the court ruled this did not alter the state’s ownership.
The property was gifted to the State of Punjab, with the hospital being constructed shortly thereafter. The transferor raised no objections during his lifetime. However, in 2001, 43 years after the donation, his son filed a suit for possession of the land. The defendants argued that the claim was barred by limitation, as the plaintiff had known of the hospital’s existence since 1981.
The bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan, found merit in the state’s argument. They noted that under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for possession must be filed within 12 years of the cause of action. Since the plaintiff was aware of the hospital by 1981, the 2001 suit was time-barred.
The court highlighted that once the property was transferred via a valid deed, the state became its rightful owner. Revenue records, intended solely for tax purposes, do not override the legal transfer. The plaintiff’s delay in filing for possession was deemed unjustifiable, and the court criticized the attempt to sidestep the limitation laws through vague drafting.
The court also underscored that the burden of proving ownership lies with the plaintiff in possession suits, referencing Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The lower courts had erred in shifting this burden to the defendant. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the state’s appeal, reinforcing the principle that administrative delays in updating records do not negate legally conferred property rights.
