Occupancy registration requires precise land identification, and the tribunal cannot enlarge the claim beyond the notice and pleadings.

Statutory proceedings for registration of occupancy require the land claimed to be identified with sufficient certainty in the notice and application, especially where only part of a survey number is in issue; without boundaries or equivalent particulars, the landowner cannot meet the claim and the process offends fair notice and natural justice. The Tribunal also cannot enlarge the claim and grant occupancy over land beyond the extent sought in the notice or beyond the case made out by the claimant, particularly where revenue records carry a presumption of correctness and no lawful basis is recorded to displace them. An order passed on such a footing is vulnerable as jurisdictionally defective and perverse.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings for registration of occupancy were vitiated because the notice and application did not identify the land claimed by boundaries or other sufficient particulars. (ii) Whether the Land Tribunal could register occupancy in respect of land beyond the extent shown in the notice and beyond the case made out by the claimant.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings for registration of occupancy were vitiated because the notice and application did not identify the land claimed by boundaries or other sufficient particulars.

Analysis: The claim related only to a part of Survey No. 76/P, but neither the application nor the statutory notice described the portion by boundaries or any other means enabling identification. For a claim to a specific portion of immovable property, especially where only part of a survey number is asserted, the land must be capable of precise identification. In the absence of such particulars, the landowner could not effectively meet the claim, and the proceedings could not validly determine whether the alleged tenant cultivated the very land claimed. The omission also offended the basic requirements of fair notice and natural justice.

Conclusion: The proceedings were vitiated for want of proper identification of the land and were invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the Land Tribunal could register occupancy in respect of land beyond the extent shown in the notice and beyond the case made out by the claimant.

Analysis: The claimant had sought occupancy only for 3 acres, and the notice under the relevant provision proceeded on that basis. The Tribunal, however, registered occupancy for the entire 5 acres 31 guntas comprised in the survey number without recording a lawful basis for enlarging the claim. The revenue records produced by the landowner carried a statutory presumption of correctness, and there was no adequate reasoning to displace that presumption. Acting beyond the extent covered by the notice and without jurisdiction to enlarge the claim, the Tribunal committed a serious jurisdictional error and passed a perverse order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant occupancy beyond the land covered by the notice and claim, and its order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the Tribunal's proceedings and final order were quashed, and the matter was left open for fresh action in accordance with law on proper notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory proceedings for registration of occupancy concern only a specified portion of land, the land must be identified with sufficient certainty in the notice and pleadings, and the tribunal cannot enlarge the claim or grant occupancy beyond the scope of the notice; an order passed in breach of natural justice and beyond jurisdiction is liable to be quashed.

---