K. GOPI

Vs.

THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025

Decided on : 07-04-2025

A. Registration Act, 1908 — Tamil Nadu Registration Rules — Rule 55A(i) — Validity — Ultra Vires — Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which empowers a registering officer to refuse registration of a document relating to immovable property unless the presentant produces the previous original title deed of the executant or other specified proof of the executant's right/title, is declared ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908 — The Rule imposes a condition for registration (proof of executant's title) and confers a power (to refuse registration based on lack of title proof) which are inconsistent with the provisions and scheme of the parent Act.

Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 11 & 165(6)(ii) — Revenue Officers — Collector — Competence of Additional Collector

 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Vs.

DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No......of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10111 of 2024)

Decided on : 08-04-2025

An Additional Collector empowered under the M.P. Land Revenue Code can validly permit tribal land transfer under S.165(6)(ii) (outside notified areas) after due consideration, rendering subsequent suo motu revision setting aside such permission erroneous.

A. Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 11 & 165(6)(ii) — Revenue Officers — Collector — Competence of Additional Collector — An Additional Collector is competent and possesses the requisite jurisdiction to grant permission for the transfer of land belonging to a member of an indigenous tribe under Section 165(6)(ii), where Section 11 includes 'Additional Collectors' within the class of 'Collector', and a specific, pre-existing work allocation order issued by the Collector empowers the concerned Additional Collector to exercise the powers of the Collector under the Code.

B. Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Section 165(6)(i) & (ii) — Transfer of Land Belonging to Indigenous Tribes — Applicable Provision — Notified Area — The absolute prohibition on transfer under Section 165(6)(i) applies only to lands situated in areas specifically notified by the State Government as predominantly inhabited by indigenous tribes — Where the land in question is admittedly located outside such a notified area, the transfer is governed by Section 165(6)(ii), which permits transfer with the prior written permission of a revenue officer not below the rank of Collector.

Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 — Sections 7(c), 13(1) & 13(7) — Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Entitlement

 NEHA ENTERPRISES

Vs.

COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH

( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N Bhatti, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 6553 of 2016

Decided on : 09-04-2025

Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 — Sections 7(c), 13(1) & 13(7) — Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Entitlement — Sales exempt under S. 7(c) — Where a dealer makes sales to manufacturer-exporters against Form-E, which are exempt from tax under S. 7(c) pursuant to notifications (dated 24.02.2010 and 25.03.2010), the dealer is not entitled to claim ITC on the purchase tax paid on such goods — The specific prohibition contained in S. 13(7)(i) explicitly disallows ITC facility in respect of purchases where the sale of such goods by the dealer is exempt under S. 7(c), thereby overriding the general entitlement provision in S. 13(1)

Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971

 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 113 — Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971 — Possession is prima facie proof of ownership, and the burden of proving otherwise lies on the party denying it, including the government — This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that reversed a Trial Court decree in favor of the appellants, who sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession of land they were dispossessed from by the State of Andhra Pradesh — The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by overlooking the appellants' long possession and failing to properly consider the presumption of ownership arising from possession under Section 113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — While acknowledging the State's need for land for public purposes, the Court criticized the high-handed dispossession without due process or compensation — Due to the construction of a DIET building on the land, the Court deemed it impractical to restore possession and directed the State to pay Rs. 70 lakhs as compensation to the appellants — The Court also emphasized the importance of adhering to Section 80 of the CPC regarding notices in suits against the government.

Appointment--Appointment of Lambardar by Collector considering merits of the candidates--High Court set aside the order in writ jurisdiction--Order of High Court not valid. Lambardar is not a Govt. servant.

sclaw.in

Cooperative Law--Revision--Recovery of dues--Recovery certificates issued against appellant for recovery of dues to cooperative bank--Petitioner filed application before Divisional Joint Registrar, who ordered to maintain status quo and set aside recovery certificate--High Court set aside impugned order--Appeal against--Order upheld by Supreme Court

sclaw.in

Courts below held that the petitioners had knowledge of the concession made in favour of C and negated their contention that they were not aware of the same till they signed the compromise petition before this Court in another appeal--Order, upheld--No reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court impugned in these proceedings-

sclaw.in