https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464262 A compromise recorded in revenue correction proceedings did not by itself confer lawful title to immovable property when it operated only within the revenue framework and not as a transfer of ownership. Because the compromise created rights for the first time in the land, registration was mandatory, and without registration no title could arise. The Deputy Commissioner's order was also without legal effect because it was passed while the 1972 Act was under suspension and the relevant power was not saved. Estoppel could not override these statutory defects. The respondent's claim therefore failed on title, registration, and jurisdiction. en-us Tue, 02 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:49:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464262 A compromise recorded in revenue correction proceedings did not by itself confer lawful title to immovable property when it operated only within the revenue framework and not as a transfer of ownership. Because the compromise created rights for the first time in the land, registration was mandatory, and without registration no title could arise. The Deputy Commissioner's order was also without legal effect because it was passed while the 1972 Act was under suspension and the relevant power was not saved. Estoppel could not override these statutory defects. The respondent's claim therefore failed on title, registration, and jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464262