FILE J · 11 pages

Case Law

The judgments that get cited at you — in five lines each.

• Sawarni: mutation confers no title

  A mutation entry in the revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes title and carries no presumption of ownership — it only enables the person recorded to pay land revenue (Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223). The converse is equally settled: an adverse mutation entry does not divest the true owner (Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137). Title is decided by the civil court, never by a mutation order.

  Draft

• Rame Gowda: settled possession

  A person in settled possession — effective, undisturbed, known to the owner — cannot be thrown out by force even by the true owner, who must take recourse to law (Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769). But the shield needs real possession: stray or intermittent acts of trespass give no right against the true owner (Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, (2019) 11 SCC 309 / 2019 INSC 101).

  Draft

• Anuradha Bhasin: limits on 163 orders

  A prohibitory order under s.144 CrPC (now s.163 BNSS) needs an emergency-grade danger, recorded material facts, and proportionality — the least restrictive measure that meets the threat (Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637). Every order must be published so it can be challenged; indefinite, overbroad or mechanically repeated orders are an abuse of the power (with In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident, (2012) 5 SCC 1).

  Draft

• D.K. Basu: the custody checklist

  D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, laid down eleven binding requirements for every arrest and detention — identification of officers, an attested arrest memo, intimation to family, medical examination every 48 hours, and more — breach of which invites contempt and departmental action. The requirements now stand largely codified in ss. 35–58 BNSS, and they are the checklist an Executive Magistrate applies in custodial-death inquiries and jail visits.

  Draft

• Yadaiah: assigned land stays assigned

  Yadaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 INSC 664 (SC, 01-08-2023): non-alienability is fundamental to the policy of assigning land to the landless poor; breach of conditions justifies resumption, and resumption is not 'acquisition' under Article 300-A — so no compensation is payable, and lapse of time or long litigation is no defence. Counterpoint: where the State validly acquires properly-held assigned land for a public purpose, the assignee is compensated as an owner (LAO-cum-RDO v. Mekala Pandu, AP HC Full Bench, 09-03-2004; reported citation 2004 (6) ALD 1 (FB) — UNVERIFIED).

  Draft

• Jagpal Singh: restore the commons

  Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396: village commons — tanks, ponds, grazing land, shamlat/poramboke — belong to the community, and States must run schemes for the speedy eviction of illegal occupants and restoration of the land to its common use. Long occupation, money spent on construction, or political influence is no defence; regularisation is permissible only in exceptional cases such as leases to the landless poor or public utilities.

  Draft

• Madhuri Patil: caste-certificate scrutiny

  Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, laid down the scrutiny protocol for caste and tribe claims: verification by a Scrutiny Committee with a vigilance-cell inquiry, show-cause and hearing before cancellation, and — where the certificate is false — cancellation, confiscation, annulment of the admission or appointment obtained on it, with prosecution possible. Later benches refined the machinery: Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham (2011) reworked the appeal clause, and the 2023 three-judge bench in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti holds the affinity test is not a litmus test.

  Draft

• Kranti Associates: orders must speak

  Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496: every quasi-judicial authority must record reasons — reasons are the link between mind and decision, restrain arbitrariness, and make appeal possible; an unreasoned order violates natural justice. The Telangana High Court has applied exactly this to the Dharani era, quashing non-speaking rejections of record-correction applications and directing reasoned disposal within fixed timelines.

  Draft

• Manoharlal: the acquisition-lapse test

  Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 / AIR 2020 SC 1496 (5-judge Constitution Bench, 06-03-2020), overruling Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183: an acquisition under the 1894 Act lapses under s.24(2) of the 2013 Act only if the State has NEITHER taken possession NOR paid compensation for five years or more. Tender or deposit of compensation discharges the payment obligation, landowners who refused compensation cannot claim lapse, and periods covered by court stays are excluded from the five-year window.

  Draft

• Satyanarayana: 38-E means ownership

  P. Satyanarayana v. Nandyala Rama Krishna Reddy (SC, Hemant Gupta & V. Ramasubramanian JJ., judgment 01-10-2021; SCC citation UNVERIFIED): once a certificate under s.38-E of the AP (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 issues, the protected tenant is the deemed owner from the notified date, the erstwhile landholder and anyone purchasing from him stand divested, and the certificate is conclusive evidence of ownership against the landholder and all persons claiming through him. Old tenancy entries therefore still defeat modern registered-deed chains.

  Draft

• Thummala Krishna Rao: summary eviction's limit

  Government of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao (SC, 1982): the summary eviction power under the Land Encroachment Act 1905 is only for clear, undisputed encroachments on government land. Where the occupant raises a bona fide dispute of title, the Government cannot decide the title question in its own favour and must go to civil court (reaffirmed in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P., SC 2002). The Act evicts encroachers, not claimants.

  Draft