https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189288 Title to land could not be displaced by revenue entries or mere payment of rent where the State failed to prove a valid lease or proprietary right. The Court noted that the land had been purchased in auction in 1859 and that the Settlement Commissioner's final order recorded the absence of any lease deed and rejected the revenue assessment. Revenue record entries were treated as rebuttable presumptions, not title deeds, and could not by themselves establish Nazul land, a fixed-term tenancy, or a State reversionary right. The plaintiff's prior title and possession were therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jan 2017 17:04:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189288 Title to land could not be displaced by revenue entries or mere payment of rent where the State failed to prove a valid lease or proprietary right. The Court noted that the land had been purchased in auction in 1859 and that the Settlement Commissioner's final order recorded the absence of any lease deed and rejected the revenue assessment. Revenue record entries were treated as rebuttable presumptions, not title deeds, and could not by themselves establish Nazul land, a fixed-term tenancy, or a State reversionary right. The plaintiff's prior title and possession were therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189288