Survey Authorities Do Not Decide TITLE

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Contents in a Nutshell

  • S. 82, BSA –
  • S. 82, BSA – Court shall presume maps or plans made by the Central Government or State Government are accurate,
  • Survey Would Not Confer Title; Survey Authorities Not to Decide Title
  • The properties are identified by title deeds.
  • The survey or resurvey would not confer title.
  • Title is Not Proved by Revenue Entries: Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 450
  • Survey authorities not to decide title: Cochin Devaswom Board v. Union of India, 2023-6 KHC 328; 2023-5 KLT 706.
  • Survey or resurvey records are not documents of proof of title.
  • Entry in the resurvey and revenue records (on subjective satisfaction) would not lose title: Cochin Devaswom Board v. Union of India, 2023-6 KHC 328.
  • Simply because resurvey plan, no title conferred: Kathirummal Chirammal Karthyayani v. Kunnool Balakrishnan, 2014-2 KHC 108; 2014-2 KLJ 289; 2014 Supp2 KLT 67 (N.K. Balakrishnan, J.).
  • Title and Possession Decided by Civil Court
  • Title and possession are decided by civil court.
  • The title and possession are matters to be decided by a Civil Court. Resurvey under S. 13 has to yield to the adjudication by the Civil Court based on title: Sundaresan Nair v. Mallan Nadar, the Kerala High Court (2012 – K. Vinod Chandran, J.)
  • In title declaration suits, survey plan & revenue records are less significant; in suits involving title dispute, title would prevail over revenue records: Laxkshmi B. v. Suku (A. Badharudeen, J.), 2024-1 KerHC 380.
  • Title to property has to be determined not with reference to the survey demarcation but based on other cogent materials, the primary of which is the title deed: Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (K. Babu, J.), 2023-7 KHC 418.
  • Reliefs are not denied merely on entries in revenue records/resurvey records – Laxkshmi B. v. Suku (A. Badharudeen, J.), 2024-1 KerHC 380.
  • Survey Conclusive Proof on Boundaries
  • Survey authorities determine the boundaries of the land: Cochin Devaswom Board v. Union of India, 2023-6 KHC 328; 2023-5 KLT 706.
  • Survey conclusive proof, boundaries determined & recorded correctly; it will not affect the right and title: Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (K. Babu, J.), 2023-7 KHC 418.
  • The record of the survey shall be conclusive proof that the boundaries were determined and recorded therein correctly. Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (K. Babu, J.), 2023-7 KHC 418 (Vide: Cheriyanad Grama Panchayath v. The State of Kerala  (2019 (5) KHC 699, Venugopalan Nair v. Saraswathy Amma (2013 (4) KLT 717), Karthyayani v. Balakrishnan [2014 (2) Suppl. 67 (Ker.)], Ibrahim v. Saythumuhammed (2013 (4) KLT 435) and Achama Alexander v. Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records (2022 (2) KHC 131).
  • This view is fortified by the decisions of the Kerala High Court in: 
    • Kannan v. Kannan (1964 KLT 228),  The Cheriyanad Grama Panchayath v. The State of Kerala  (2019 (5) KerHC 699), Venugopalan Nair v. Saraswathy Amma (2013 (4) KLT 717); Karthyayani v. Balakrishnan (2014 (2) KLT Suppl. 67 (Ker.); Ibrahim v. Saythumuhammed, (2013 (4) KLT 435); Achama Alexander v. Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records (2022 (2) KerHC 131: 2022-3 KLT 198); Thomas v. Philip (2022(4) KerHC 451); Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (2023-7 KHC 418).
  • Survey Raises Presumption of Possession
  • When a person is holding a survey division, there is presumption of possession: Achuthan Unni v. Vally, 1962 KLT 1010. Damodara Panicker v. Ayyappan Kutty, 1962 KLT 637; 1962 KHC 153, (Quoted in: Susi v. Sujathan, 2022-1 KHC 671, K Babu, J. and in Kathirummal Chirammal Karthyayani v. Kunnool Balakrishnan, 2014-2 KHC 108; 2014-2 KLJ 289; 2014 Supp2 KLT 67)
  • Survey authorities determine boundaries – Based on Possession, predominantly based on possession: Thomas v. Philip, 2022(4) KerHC 451 (K. Babu, J.) It is.
  • Survey authority is empowered to determine the disputes regarding the fixation of boundary; not empowered the survey authority to change the ownership:  Achama Alexander v. Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records (K. Babu, J.), 2022-2 KHC 131; 2022-3 KLT 198
  • Entries in Revenue Records or Jamabandi serve only a “fiscal purpose”
  • Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186; Jitendra Singh v. State of MP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223.

Survey-Plan: Presumption under Section 82 BSA

Section 82 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, provides as under:

  • “82. Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government: The Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of the Central Government or any State Government were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate.”

Properties Identified on Title Deeds

  • The properties are to be identified based on the title deeds.
  • The changes in the extent of the property in the resurvey would not confer title.

Survey Authorities Not to Decide Title

  • It is not for the survey authorities to decide the question of the title (based on resurvey records).
  • The decision of the survey authorities shall not affect the right and title of the properties acquired by a party as per a valid title deed.

In Cochin Devaswom Board v. Union of India, 2023-6 KHC 328; 2023-5 KLT 706, it is held as under:

  • “13. Section 2(vi) of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 defines “survey.” …. But this definition or any other provision in the Act confers (no) power on the survey authorities to decide a question regarding title to a property.”
  • “15. Under Section 9 of the Act the Survey Officer has power to determine and record as undisputed any boundary in respect of which no dispute is brought to his notice. As per Section 10 of the Act, where a boundary is disputed, the survey officer shall, after making such inquiries as he considers necessary, determine the boundary and record it in accordance with his decision with reasons in writing for arriving at that decision. Those provisions make it clear that the powers invested on the Survey Officers as well as the District Collectors under the Act is only to determine the boundaries of the land and not to decide title to the properties. Its corollary is that the survey authorities or the District Collector shall not decide the question of the title based on resurvey records.”
  • “16. In Nandakumar v. District Collector, Ernakulam, 2018 (2) KHC 58, a Division Bench of this Court observed that land conservancy proceedings cannot be carried out merely based on re-survey records. Entries in re-survey records are predominantly on the basis of possession as of now. They would be totally worthless, when the question is as to whether lands vested in Deities and controlled by the Devaswom Boards or trustees have been encroached upon and reduced to occupation by private persons or other agencies. Obviously, the prior revenue records have to be looked into to ascertain whether there is any parcel which stands vested, in a particular Deity. If that be so, collateral materials will also have to be looked into to ascertain the genesis of the property. Even if there is no revenue record in that regard, the vesting, if any, in any deity has to be ascertained.”
  • 19. As pointed out above the survey or resurvey records are no documents of proof of title to a property. …. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit in this regard that property in question assumed the character of a road having the potential of being a public utility and in the user of the general public. …. It vested in the panchayat under the provisions of Section 169(1) of the Pancayat Raj Act. The learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance on Mariam Beevi vs. Secretary, Athirampuzha Grama Panchayath, Kottayam and Others, 2015 (2) KLT 768 : 2015 (3) KHC 199 to fortify his contention. The said decision rendered by a learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Mariam Beevi vs. Secretary, Athirampuzha Grama Panchayath, Kottayam and Others, 2017 SCC Online Ker. 7182.
  • 20. …. The local authority would have maintained it out of its social obligation. Albeit such maintenance, the road never was brought to the asset register. It being a property of the Deity, by such an overt act of tarring alone, the title of the Deity will not be divested. There shall be a process known to law, such as acquisition, voluntary transfer, etc. for the Deity to lose its title to a property. In that view of the matter, the law laid down in Mariam Beevi 2015 (3) KHC 199 cannot have application to this case.
  • 21. As observed hereinbefore entry in the resurvey and revenue records that the property is a puramboke, obviously, is on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the authorities concerned. That would not have the effect of losing title of the Devaswom to the property in question. The 3rd respondent without understanding the law in the proper perspective took the view in Ext.P14 order that the petitioner does not have right in the road in question thereby cancelling the settlement of it in favour of the Devaswom and denied compensation.”
  • “23. In Manharlal Shivlal Panchal and Others vs. Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officers and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1707 : 2023 (1) CCC 18, the Apex Court considered a question whether on account of the delay, which has sufficient justification, the claim for compensation could be rejected as barred by the law of limitation. Under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, a claim has to be made within six months. ….. The facts of this case are different. But, the infraction of law occurred in the process of acquisition, especially that no notice as contemplated in Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act was given to the petitioner, certainly justifies the delay in staking the claim.”

Title and Possession Decided by Civil Court

The title and possession are matters to be decided by a Civil Court.

Merely because a portion of the plaintiff’s property is shown in the resurvey records as with defendant’s survey number, it cannot lead to an inference that possession was with the defendant.

In Sundaresan Nair v. Mallan Nadar, the Kerala High Court (2012 – K. Vinod Chandran, J.) held as under:

  • “The questions of law regarding conclusiveness of the re-survey conducted under the Survey Act is held against the appellants and in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Necessarily, the resurvey conducted under Section 13 has to yield to the adjudication by the competent Civil Court with respect to the identity based on title.”

In title declaration Suits, Survey Plan & Revenue Records are Less significant

In Laxkshmi B. v. Suku (A. Badharudeen, J.), 2024-1 KerHC 380, it is observed as under:  

  • “16. … When a suit for recovery of possession has been filed on the strength of title or in a suit for title declaration, title would prevail over revenue records and resurvey numbers. To put it differently, tax receipts, survey plan, resurvey plan or revenue records do not confer title to anybody, when there is title deed in relation to the said property in favour of the title holder. Therefore, in suits involving title dispute, title would prevail over revenue records, if it is found on measurement that the property covered by the title deed is identified properly justifying the declaration of title and recovery of possession on the strength of title. The said reliefs never be denied merely on the ground that in the revenue records/resurvey records, the said portion of the property is not shown as the property of the plaintiffs.

Survey Conclusive Proof – Boundaries Determined & Recorded Correctly

In Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (K. Babu, J.), 2023-7 KHC 418, it is observed as under:

  • “It is also trite that the decisions of the survey authorities under Chapter II of the Act (Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act) will not affect the right and title of the property acquired by a party as per a valid title deed. The right and title to property have to be determined not with reference to the survey demarcation but based on other cogent materials, the primary of which is the title deed. The record of the survey result shall be conclusive proof that the boundaries were determined and recorded therein correctly. (Vide: Cheriyanad Grama Panchayath v. The State of Kerala and Ors. (2019 (5) KHC 699, Venugopalan Nair v. Saraswathy Amma (2013 (4) KLT 717), Karthyayani v. Balakrishnan [2014 (2) Suppl. 67 (Ker.)], Ibrahim v. Saythumuhammed (2013 (4) KLT 435) and Achama Alexander (Died. Lrs impleaded) and Others v. Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records and Others (2022 (2) KHC 131).”

The record of the survey result shall be conclusive proof that the boundaries were determined and recorded therein correctly (when survey was made). This view is fortified by the decisions of the Kerala High Court in: 

  • Kannan v. Kannan (1964 KLT 228), 
  • The Cheriyanad Grama Panchayath v. The State of Kerala  (2019 (5) KerHC 699),
  • Venugopalan Nair v. Saraswathy Amma (2013 (4) KLT 717);
  • Karthyayani v. Balakrishnan (2014 (2) KLT Suppl. 67 (Ker.);
  • Ibrahim v. Saythumuhammed (2013 (4) KLT 435);
  • Achama Alexander v. Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records (2022 (2) KerHC 131: 2022-3 KLT 198);
  • Thomas v. Philip,2022(4) KerHC 451;
  • Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony, 2023-7 KHC 418.

Survey and Demarcation of lands raises Presumption of Possession

In Achuthan Unni v. Vally, 1962 KLT 1010, it is held as under:

  • “3. The survey and demarcation of lands by the State have a purpose; they are intended to identify the different pieces of land so as to regulate the rights of landholders. Rights in land will normally be presumed to be in terms of the survey divisions. When a person is admitted or found to be in possession of a survey division, the presumption is of such possession being extensive with the survey division concerned; and he is not to be constrained to prove his possession of every inch of it. It is then for the person who asserts the contrary to prove by positive evidence that a defined portion thereof is in his adverse possession and has been lost to the owner thereof. If the court finds the same, the Land Records will be corrected accordingly sub-dividing the original survey division so as to demarcate each holding with separate survey number.”

In Damodara Panicker v. Ayyappan Kutty, 1962 KLT 637; 1962 KHC 153, it is held as under:

  • 5. Where the disputed land is a narrow strip, (in this case, it is of width ranging from two or three feet) at the verge of the plaintiff’s land adjoining the defendants’ property it would in most cases, be difficult to prove its actual possession as such. If the remaining portion of the plaintiff’s land is admitted or found to be in the plaintiff’s possession, the same must be held to extend to the border, unless there be clear evidence to the contrary. In other words, when a person is admitted or found to be in possession of his land identified by a Survey Number and the dispute by the adjoining landholder concerns only a narrow strip at the mutual boundary, the possession of the former will be presumed to be coextensive with the relative survey division and the burden will be on the party claiming the encroachment to prove his adverse possession thereof for over the statutory period (of 12 years). [See: Achuthan Unni v. Vally, 1962 KLJ 400].” (Quoted in: n Susi v. Sujathan, 2022-1 KHC 671, K Babu, J. and in Kathirummal Chirammal Karthyayani v. Kunnool Balakrishnan, 2014-2 KHC 108; 2014-2 KLJ 289; 2014 Supp2 KLT 67)

Simply Because Resurvey Plan –  No Title Conferred

In Kathirummal Chirammal Karthyayani v. Kunnool Balakrishnan, 2014-2 KHC 108; 2014-2 KLJ 289; 2014 Supp2 KLT 67 (N.K. Balakrishnan, J.), the argument of the appellant in the Second Appeal was laid down by the court as under:

  • “5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who was examined as PW1 had a definite case that her property extends up to the ‘chal’ and the ridge on the eastern side of the property and so the findings entered by the appellate court that the boundary of the respondents’ property should be along the ‘EF’ line, cannot be accepted at all. Simply because resurvey was conducted and a plan was drawn by the Survey Authorities, it cannot be said that the appellant’s property does not extend up to the dotted line shown by the Commissioner, which is actually the natural boundary of the property, it is argued.”

Dismissing the second appeal, it is held as under:

  • “12. If it is a case where large extent of property lying in a different survey number is claimed by the plaintiff based on a survey record alone, when actually it is in the possession of the defendant, the plaintiff has to seek recovery of possession of that large extent of property which is in the possession of the defendant. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it is only a very narrow strip of land lying along the boundary line. Hence, the presumption should be that the person, who has got title to the property and whose boundary extends up to the line stated above is in possession of that narrow strip of land as well.”

Survey Authorities Determine Boundaries – Based on Possession

Kerala High Court held in Thomas v. Philip, 2022(4) KerHC 451 (K. Babu, J.) to the following effect:

  • The Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 empowers the survey authorities to determine the boundaries of different sub-divisions.
  • It is predominantly based on possession.
  • As per the Act, the survey officer has the power to determine and record any boundary as undisputed in respect of which no dispute is brought to his notice.
  • Where a boundary is disputed, the survey officer shall, after making such inquiries as he considers necessary, determine the boundary and record it in accordance with his decision with reasons in writing for arriving at that decision.

Power of Survey Officer to determine disputed boundary

In Cheriyanad Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala, 2019 (4) KLT 916, it is laid down as under:

  • Section 10 of the Act authorizes the survey officer to re-define the boundary lines of a particular survey already settled by old survey records.
  • Section 6 and 7 of the Act do not empower survey officer to re-define any boundary line of a particular survey which was already settled and finalised in an earlier survey (except for the purpose of Section 5 of the Act which deals with the situation wherein certain area was taken away by sea erosion or action of river.)
  • Section 4 of the Act also permits a survey of the land, but its purpose should be understood in relation to the necessity to have a re-survey, certainly, not for altering the earlier survey records, but for recording the further divisions of property out of a large extent within a particular survey.

In Achama Alexander v. Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records (K. Babu, J.), 2022-2 KHC 131; 2022-3 KLT 198, it is observed as under:

  • “24. A reading of Sec. 10 of the Act makes it candidly clear that the survey authority is only empowered to determine the disputes regarding the fixation of boundary between owners of land comprised in a particular survey division. The act of determination envisaged in Sec. 10 of the Act essentially draws a dividing line based on ownership within a particular survey or, in other words, Sec. 10 of the Act does not authorise the Survey Authority to redefine the boundary line of a particular survey already settled by old survey records. Section 10 of the Act does not empower the survey authority to change the ownership of a particular sub-division and make it part of another survey sub-division.”

Sec. 10 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act reads as inder:

  • “10. Power of Survey Officer to determine and record a disputed boundary with reasons– (1) Where a boundary is disputed, the Survey Officer shall, after making such inquiries as he considers necessary, determine the boundary and record it in accordance with his decision with reasons in writing for arriving at that decision.
  • (2) Notice of every decision of the Survey Officer under sub-section (1) shall be given in the prescribed manner to the parties to the dispute and other registered holders of the lands, the boundaries of which may be affected by the decision.

Read Also:

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession: 

Survey, Revenue Records, Mutation

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Natural Justice/Disciplinary Action

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment