Safiya Malik

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued directions for a detailed land survey and verification of revenue records to determine the jurisdiction and ownership of disputed land near the Haryana-Uttar Pradesh border. The matter pertains to claims regarding whether the land, located in Village Manjhawali, Haryana, was originally part of Uttar Pradesh before being transferred under an administrative settlement. The court has directed the Surveyor General of India to conduct an assessment to determine the historical jurisdiction of the land and its ownership. Both states have been instructed to collaborate in verifying historical land records and resolving inconsistencies arising from conflicting claims. The ruling also mandates the retrieval of official records concerning any prior transfer and requires revenue authorities to update land records accordingly.

The petitioners claim ownership of 300 bighas of land, asserting that they acquired it through registered sale deeds and that its historical revenue records indicate prior classification under Uttar Pradesh. According to their submissions, the land originally fell within Uttar Pradesh’s jurisdiction but became part of Haryana due to a shift in the course of the Yamuna River. They have cited the Dixit Award, a settlement mechanism governing inter-state boundary adjustments in response to river course changes, as the basis for the land’s transfer to Haryana. The petitioners submitted that the land was initially leased in 1948 and later acquired by them in 1959 under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. They have also stated that they have remained in possession of the land since the transfer. A conflicting claim was raised in 1989 when another party executed a sale deed for the same land, leading to legal disputes regarding ownership.

In 1984, Uttar Pradesh transferred revenue records related to the land to Haryana. The petitioners contended that Haryana's revenue authorities did not update the records appropriately, resulting in the cancellation of their land ownership entries in 1996. This led to legal proceedings before revenue authorities, including the Collector and the Commissioner. After receiving unfavorable decisions, the petitioners approached the High Court, seeking correction of the land records and enforcement of land measurement procedures under statutory provisions.

The High Court noted that the governments of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh had presented conflicting positions. Haryana maintained that the land had always been within its jurisdiction and that no record confirmed a transfer from Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh, however, contended that the land was originally within its administrative boundaries before being transferred to Haryana. To address this issue, the court directed the Surveyor General of India to conduct a survey to determine the historical classification of the land, its jurisdiction, and its ownership.

The report submitted by the Surveyor General provided findings relevant to the dispute. It recorded that no revenue estate named Chak Manjhawali was found in Uttar Pradesh’s official records from 1935-36 onward. However, the petitioners’ documents indicated that such a transfer had taken place. The court observed that “the records presented by both parties indicate inconsistencies that must be addressed through a systematic verification process.” The judgment further recorded that “in the absence of clear documentation, the matter requires careful examination of historical land records to ensure accurate demarcation and prevent unlawful claims.”

The court also addressed the relevance of the Dixit Award, recording that “the implementation of the Dixit Award requires precise measurement and formal documentation to confirm whether the disputed land was part of the agreed boundary adjustments.” The judgment noted discrepancies in revenue records and directed both states to retrieve and disclose any historical records concerning an official transfer. The ruling further recorded that “since the acquisition of title by the present petitioners predated subsequent transactions, the authorities are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings concerning the legality of subsequent sale deeds.”

The court issued specific directions to resolve the dispute. The Surveyor General of India was instructed to conduct a fresh land survey in collaboration with the revenue authorities of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The survey is required to assess the land’s historical jurisdiction, examine whether the Yamuna River’s course had altered the land’s administrative classification, and establish boundary markers. The court further directed that revenue records be updated based on verified historical documentation. Any subsequent sale deeds executed in contravention of prior land records are to be reviewed, and if found to be invalid, they are to be annulled.

The judgment addressed procedural issues concerning the maintenance of land records, particularly the absence of official documentation specifying the stage at which the land transfer occurred. The court recorded that some documents indicated a transfer from Uttar Pradesh to Haryana, but the relevant revenue authorities had not provided records confirming when this occurred. The judgment stated that “since the acquisition of title to the disputed lands by the petitioners predates the subsequent transactions, the authorities are directed to take lawful steps to ensure the cancellation of any subsequently executed prima facie tainted sale deeds.”

Further, the court directed that pending resolution of the matter, there should be no interference with the petitioners’ possession of the land, and any disputes regarding possession should be addressed through appropriate civil proceedings. The state authorities were ordered to submit compliance reports detailing their progress in verifying and updating the land records.

Case Title: Ishwar Singh & Others v. State of Haryana & Others

Case Number: CWP-19103-2016 (O&M)

Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur & Justice Vikas Suri

[Read/Download order]