Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
LEGAL NATURE AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF KHASRA AND KHATAUNI
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
LEGAL
NATURE AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF KHASRA AND KHATAUNI
AUTHORED BY - ISHANK CHOUDHARY
Abstract
Land revenue records occupy an
important position in the administration of agricultural land in Uttar Pradesh. Among these records,
Khasra and Khatauni are frequently relied upon to
establish possession, cultivation, the identity of tenure-holders and the recorded
interests associated with a particular parcel of land. However,
their evidentiary significance must be distinguished from their capacity
to establish ownership or legal title. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006
provides a statutory framework for the preparation and maintenance of land records
and recognises a rebuttable presumption of truth in respect of qualifying entries in
the record of rights. Nevertheless, such presumption does not convert a revenue
entry into an independent source of title.
This paper examines the legal nature of Khasra and Khatauni, their evidentiary value under the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006, and the limitations governing their use in civil and revenue proceedings. It analyses the Supreme
Court's decisions in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and
Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, which consistently distinguish revenue
entries from documents conferring proprietary rights. Particular attention is
given to Section 40 of the Code, the rebuttable character of statutory presumptions, the distinction between
possession and ownership, and the consequences of inaccurate or disputed entries. The paper
argues that revenue records should be treated as important but not
conclusive evidence, with their weight determined by the statutory provision
applicable to the particular entry, the circumstances of its preparation and
the totality of evidence before the adjudicating authority.
Keywords:
Khasra, Khatauni,
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, land records, mutation, presumption of
correctness, possession, ownership, title to immovable property.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Land records are essential to the
administration of agricultural property, particularly in a State such as Uttar
Pradesh, where rights in agricultural holdings frequently arise through
inheritance, transfer, succession and other legally recognised modes of
acquisition. Accurate revenue records facilitate the identification of land parcels, assessment of land revenue,
maintenance of cultivation particulars and administration of recorded tenure rights. They also
serve as documentary material in disputes concerning possession, succession,
mutation and competing claims over immovable property.
Two important records in this framework are Khasra and Khatauni.
Broadly, the Khasra is associated with the identification of individual plots
and the recording of field-level particulars, including cultivation and
possession-related information. The Khatauni is the record of rights maintained
for a village, containing particulars of tenure-holders, plot or survey
numbers, areas, the nature and extent of recorded interests, and other
prescribed particulars. Their precise contents and evidentiary significance
depend upon the applicable statutory provisions and revenue-recording
procedures.
The principal legal difficulty
arises when a person relies upon an entry in either record as proof of
ownership. An entry may identify a person as a recorded tenure-holder or
cultivator, but it does not necessarily establish the legal transaction or event
through which that person acquired the claimed interest. A name may be entered
following inheritance, a mutation proceeding or an administrative correction. Whether the underlying event actually confers title is a separate legal
question.
The Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006 seeks to regulate the preparation and maintenance of land records while providing a statutory
presumption in favour of qualifying entries. The Supreme Court, however, has
repeatedly clarified that revenue
entries and mutation
orders do not independently create
or extinguish title. The relationship
between statutory presumptions and
this judicial principle therefore requires careful examination.
This paper addresses the following research
question: Can Khasra and
Khatauni be treated as reliable
evidence of title, or is their evidentiary
value principally confined to establishing recorded possession, cultivation
and revenue-related particulars?
The central argument is that these
records can constitute relevant and, in appropriate circumstances, persuasive
evidence of recorded interests and possession. Nevertheless, neither their
official character nor a statutory presumption of correctness makes them
conclusive proof of ownership.
2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY:
The principal objectives of this research
are:
·
To examine the legal nature and functions
of Khasra and Khatauni
under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
·
To analyse the statutory presumption applicable to entries
in the record of rights.
·
To distinguish the evidentiary value of
revenue entries from the legal effect of documents and events that create or
transfer title.
·
To evaluate the principles established in
leading Supreme Court decisions.
·
To identify practical safeguards for assessing
disputed revenue records in judicial and revenue
proceedings.
The paper adopts a doctrinal method
of legal research. It examines statutory provisions, judicial precedents and
established principles governing land records and title to immovable property.
The analysis is principally concerned with the legal framework applicable in
Uttar Pradesh, while decisions of the Supreme Court are considered for their
broader relevance to the evidentiary treatment of revenue entries.
3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK UNDER THE UTTAR PRADESH
REVENUE CODE, 2006
3.1
Record of rights
and Khatauni:
Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006 provides for the maintenance of a record of rights, commonly
known as the Khatauni. The provision contemplates the recording of particulars
concerning tenure-holders, survey or plot numbers, areas, the nature and extent
of recorded interests, and other prescribed information.
The record of rights performs an
administrative and evidentiary function. It creates an organised account of the
interests recognised or recorded in the revenue administration. Its importance
lies in the fact that it is prepared and maintained under a statutory
framework rather than being an informal private document.
However, the recording of an interest
and the legal acquisition of that interest are not necessarily identical. A
revenue entry may reflect a claim or a determination made during revenue
proceedings, but the legal foundation of ownership must still be examined
wherever title is genuinely disputed.
Consequently, the Khatauni should
be understood as an official record of recorded rights and interests, rather
than as an instrument that independently transfers ownership.
3.2
Nature and function
of Khasra
The Khasra is associated with
field-level land particulars, including plot identification and information
concerning cultivation and possession. It can assist in identifying the parcel
of land under dispute and in examining the person recorded as cultivating or
occupying it during a relevant period.
Such entries may become
significant where parties
dispute actual possession, continuity of cultivation, the identity of a particular plot or the circumstances
surrounding an alleged transfer of possession.
Nevertheless, an entry indicating
cultivation does not necessarily establish ownership. A person may cultivate
land as a tenant, licensee, authorised cultivator or person otherwise permitted
to use the property. Conversely, an owner may not personally cultivate the land. The legal inference to be drawn from a Khasra entry must therefore
depend upon the nature of the entry
and the surrounding circumstances.
It is also important to distinguish
the legal treatment of Khasra from that of Khatauni. Their related
administrative purposes do not mean that every statutory presumption applicable
to one record automatically extends to the other.
3.3
Section 40: Presumption as to entries
Section 40 of the Uttar
Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 provides that entries in the record of rights, namely the Khatauni, prepared
in accordance with the Code shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is
proved.
The wording of this provision has
important consequences. First, the presumption
is conditional upon the entry having
been prepared in
accordance with the statutory framework. Secondly, it is rebuttable because the
statute expressly permits proof to
the contrary. Thirdly, the presumption concerns the truth of qualifying
entries; it does not expressly declare that every such entry conclusively
establishes proprietary title.
The legislative history is also
relevant. Section 40 originally referred to entries in the village map field
book (Khasra) and the record of rights (Khatauni). The Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code (Amendment) Act, 2016 substituted the wording
so that the provision refers
to entries in the record
of rights (Khatauni). Accordingly, the current text of Section 40 must
be considered carefully when a party seeks to invoke its presumption in relation
to a Khasra entry.
This distinction does not mean that Khasra entries
are legally irrelevant. They may still be admissible and relevant under the applicable law of evidence
and other statutory provisions. It means only that the
specific presumption under the
current wording of Section 40 should not automatically be extended to Khasra
entries without examining the applicable legal basis.
The distinction is important
because a presumption of truth and conclusive proof are different legal concepts.
A rebuttable presumption facilitates
proof by assigning evidentiary weight to a qualifying entry,
but it does not prevent
the opposing party from demonstrating that the entry is inaccurate,
outdated, procedurally defective or inconsistent with stronger evidence.
4. EVIDENTIARY VALUE: POSSESSION, RECORDED
INTEREST AND TITLE
4.1
Revenue records as evidence of possession
Revenue records may provide
substantial assistance in determining the nature
and continuity of possession.
Entries maintained over successive agricultural years may help
establish that a person was regularly recorded as cultivating or occupying
particular land. When supported by other material, such entries may corroborate a claim of settled
possession.
However, the inference must remain
sensitive to the character of the entry. Cultivation is a factual activity,
whereas possession is a legal and factual concept that may arise in different
forms. Neither necessarily establishes ownership. For example, where the Khasra records a person as the cultivator of a particular plot over several
years, the entries
may support the proposition
that the person cultivated the land
during those periods.
They do not, without further evidence, establish that
the person acquired ownership through a registered conveyance, inheritance or
any other legally recognised mode.
Similarly, the absence of a
person's name from a revenue record cannot invariably defeat a legally
established title. Errors, omissions, delays in mutation and incomplete
updating may affect the accuracy of the record.
4.2
Revenue records and ownership
Ownership of immovable property
ordinarily depends upon the applicable law governing the acquisition, transfer or devolution of the relevant
interest. Depending upon the circumstances, the underlying evidence may
include a valid conveyance, a legally effective
gift, inheritance under the applicable personal law, a competent
court decree or another recognised source of
title. Revenue entries may corroborate such evidence, but they cannot ordinarily substitute for the legal foundation of the claimed
right. A person cannot
establish ownership merely by demonstrating that their name appears in the
Khatauni if the underlying
transaction or event does not legally
confer the claimed interest.
Equally, a person whose title
is supported by legally sufficient evidence does not necessarily lose that title because the revenue record
has not been updated.
The distinction protects substantive
property rights against being determined solely through administrative
recording.
4.3
Mutation and its legal effect
Mutation is the process by which
changes in recorded interests are reflected in revenue records following events
such as death, succession, transfer or other legally relevant changes. It
assists the revenue administration in maintaining updated records and
identifying the persons against whom revenue-related obligations may be
recorded.
Mutation must, however, be
distinguished from the transaction or event that gives rise to the claimed
right. An order recording a person's name after the death of a predecessor does
not independently determine every question concerning the validity of a disputed
will, the existence
of competing heirs or
the ultimate extent of their proprietary interests.
The legal effect of mutation must
therefore be understood within the jurisdiction of the revenue authority and
the applicable substantive law. Where a genuine
dispute concerning ownership requires adjudication beyond the scope of the revenue
proceeding, the appropriate competent forum must determine that question in
accordance with law.
5. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION:
LEADING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
5.1
Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh
In Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh,
(1997) 7 SCC 137, the Supreme Court examined the effect of mutation entries in
a dispute concerning rights in immovable property.
The Court reaffirmed that mutation
entries do not create or extinguish title. Their principal function is
associated with revenue administration and the collection of land revenue. The
presence of a person's name in a mutation entry cannot, by itself, be treated
as a conveyance of ownership or as extinguishing the title of another person.
The significance of this decision lies in its insistence that the evidentiary effect of a revenue entry must
not be confused with the substantive
legal effect of a transaction. A mutation entry may be relevant to the administrative history of the
property, but it cannot independently replace the legal requirements governing
acquisition or transfer of title.
The decision is particularly
relevant where parties rely upon long-standing mutation entries to assert that
ownership has passed to them or that another person's title has ceased to exist. The Court's reasoning requires the adjudicating authority to examine the legal basis of the claimed right rather
than treating the revenue entry as decisive.
5.2
Sawarni v. Inder Kaur
In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6
SCC 223, the Supreme Court reiterated that mutation of a property in the
revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title. The Court explained that mutation is primarily relevant
for fiscal purposes and that the question of ownership must be
determined independently of the revenue entry.
The decision illustrates the distinction between
the administrative recognition of a person's name and the legal establishment of proprietary rights.
The entry may reflect a claim
or an administrative decision, but its presence does not necessarily validate
the underlying claim.
The principle is of considerable practical importance in inheritance disputes. Where a person relies
upon mutation following the death of a recorded
holder, the revenue entry cannot,
by itself, settle a dispute concerning the
validity of a will, the identity of
lawful heirs or the shares to which they are entitled. Those matters must be
determined by reference to the
applicable substantive law and the evidence properly before the competent
forum.
The judgment therefore supports a
careful approach: revenue records are relevant material, but they must not be
treated as a substitute for proof of the
legal event through which title is claimed.
5.3
Common principle emerging
from the precedents
The three decisions establish
a consistent judicial
approach. Revenue records may be relevant in identifying
recorded interests and understanding the administrative history of land, but
mutation does not itself operate as a conveyance of ownership.
The principle must be applied
alongside Section 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The statutory
presumption of truth applicable to qualifying Khatauni entries concerns their
evidentiary status; it does not automatically transform them into conclusive
proof of title. There is no necessary conflict
between the statute and the Supreme
Court's decisions: an entry may
enjoy a rebuttable presumption of correctness while remaining insufficient, on
its own, to establish the legal acquisition of ownership.
6. REBUTTAL OF
THE PRESUMPTION
AND ASSESSMENT
OF EVIDENCE
The presumption under Section 40 is
not absolute. A party disputing a qualifying Khatauni entry may seek to rebut
it by producing legally relevant material showing that the entry is incorrect or does not reflect the actual legal position.
The nature of the rebuttal will depend upon the dispute.
Relevant material may include the underlying mutation
order, records of the proceedings in which the entry was made, earlier revenue
records, legally effective instruments of transfer, inheritance documents,
relevant court decrees, evidence concerning possession and other material
admissible under the applicable law.
An
adjudicating authority should
consider at least four questions.
First, was the entry prepared in accordance with the applicable statutory procedure? An entry whose legal foundation or procedural history
is disputed requires
examination of the relevant record rather than uncritical acceptance. Secondly, what exactly does the entry record? An entry concerning cultivation should not automatically be treated as a declaration of ownership. The evidentiary inference must correspond
to the information actually recorded. Thirdly, is the entry consistent with
other relevant evidence? Long-standing entries
may provide corroboration, but a conflict
with legally operative
instruments or competent judicial determinations requires careful
resolution.
Fourthly, what question is the
forum being asked to decide? A revenue authority dealing with the maintenance
of records may have a different function from
a civil court adjudicating a contested claim to ownership. The
evidentiary value of a document must
be assessed within the jurisdiction and purpose of the proceeding.
These considerations prevent two
opposite errors: treating revenue
entries as legally meaningless, and treating them as conclusive proof of ownership. The appropriate approach is to recognise their statutory and
evidentiary significance while preserving the distinction between
recorded particulars and substantive proprietary rights.
7. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR LITIGATION
The legal principles discussed above have direct
implications for the conduct
of land disputes.A party relying upon a Khatauni should identify the precise
entry, the relevant agricultural year, the plot or survey number, the recorded
interest and the statutory basis
upon which the presumption is invoked. Where the entry results from mutation, the underlying order and the documents relied upon during the mutation proceeding
may be important.
A party relying upon a Khasra
should establish what the particular entry records and why it is relevant
to the issue in dispute.
If the entry concerns cultivation or possession, the submission should be framed accordingly rather than asserting that it
conclusively proves ownership.
Conversely, a party challenging a
revenue entry should identify the specific defect alleged, such as an
inaccurate entry, an incorrect plot identification, a disputed mutation, an
omission in the record or inconsistency with legally operative documents.
A general denial may be less persuasive than a challenge
supported by the underlying revenue
proceedings and documentary evidence. Where the real dispute concerns ownership,
succession, the validity of a conveyance or the genuineness of a will, the
parties should distinguish that substantive issue from the administrative
question of mutation. The appropriate remedy and forum will depend upon the
nature of the claim, the statutory framework and the jurisdiction conferred by
law.
Ultimately, the practical value of
Khasra and Khatauni depends upon a disciplined
assessment of what they prove,
what they merely
suggest and what requires independent legal
determination.
8. CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The legal framework governing
Khasra and Khatauni reflects an attempt to balance administrative certainty
with the protection of substantive property rights. A presumption in favour of qualifying entries
supports the practical
functioning of revenue administration. Without such a presumption, the routine
maintenance and use of land records would become unnecessarily burdensome, and
parties might be required to establish every recorded particular afresh in each
proceeding.
At the same time, treating revenue
entries as conclusive proof of ownership would create significant risks.
Administrative records may contain
mistakes, remain uncorrected after a transfer or inheritance, or reflect a
claim that has not been conclusively adjudicated. A fiscal
or record-maintenance proceeding may also be unsuitable for
resolving complex questions concerning the validity of instruments, competing
succession claims or the legal consequences of earlier transactions.
The distinction between Khasra and
Khatauni deserves particular attention. The
current wording of Section 40 expressly concerns
entries in the record of rights, or Khatauni, whereas the
earlier wording also referred to the village map field book (Khasra). This
legislative change makes it necessary for practitioners and adjudicating authorities to identify the precise record
relied upon and avoid applying a statutory presumption beyond its current
terms.
However, the distinction should not
lead to an unduly restrictive approach under which Khasra entries are
disregarded. Their relevance may arise from the applicable rules of evidence, the statutory framework
governing their preparation and the factual issue
under consideration. The correct
question is not whether a particular record is inherently conclusive, but what evidentiary inference can lawfully be
drawn from it in the circumstances of the case.
The broader judicial principle is
therefore one of evidentiary calibration. Official records deserve appropriate
weight, but the weight must remain proportionate to their purpose, method of
preparation, statutory status and consistency with other evidence. This
approach preserves both the utility of revenue records and the primacy of
legally established title.
9. SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
First, revenue authorities should
ensure that entries
are prepared, updated
and corrected in accordance with the governing statutory procedure.
Clear documentation of the basis for mutation and correction would improve
transparency and reduce disputes.
Secondly, courts and revenue
authorities should expressly distinguish between entries concerning
cultivation, possession and recorded tenure interests. The nature of the entry should determine the inference
drawn from it.
Thirdly, parties should be
encouraged to produce the underlying mutation proceedings where the accuracy
or legal foundation of an entry is disputed.
Reliance upon an isolated
extract may not provide a complete
account of the circumstances in which
the name was recorded.
Fourthly, legal practitioners
should distinguish between the presumption under Section 40 and the legal
requirements for proving title. Pleadings and submissions should identify the
precise statutory provision relied upon and should not assert that the presumption
automatically establishes ownership.
Finally,
greater public awareness regarding the limited legal effect of mutation may
help prevent misunderstandings in land transactions and inheritance disputes. Persons
acquiring land should
verify not only the revenue
entries but also the legal
instruments and circumstances supporting the claimed title.
10.
CONCLUSION
Khasra and Khatauni are important
components of the land-record administration of Uttar Pradesh. They assist in
identifying land parcels, recording cultivation and possession-related
particulars, maintaining information concerning
tenure-holders and documenting changes
recognised in the revenue system. Their official character and statutory
framework give them meaningful evidentiary significance.
Nevertheless, the legal effect
of these records
must be assessed
with precision. Section 40 of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006 provides a rebuttable presumption of truth for
qualifying entries in the Khatauni prepared in accordance with the Code. The provision does not make every revenue entry conclusive proof of ownership. Moreover, the
current statutory wording requires a distinction between Khatauni entries and
Khasra entries when the specific presumption under Section 40 is invoked.
The Supreme Court's decisions in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh and Sawarni v. Inder Kaur reinforce the
proposition that mutation and revenue entries do not independently create or
extinguish title. The underlying source of the claimed proprietary right must
be established in accordance with the applicable substantive law.
The answer to the research question
is therefore qualified. Khasra and Khatauni may constitute reliable and relevant
evidence of the particulars they lawfully record, subject to the
applicable rules of evidence and any
statutory presumption. They may also corroborate a claim to title when read with other
legally sufficient material. However, they cannot ordinarily be treated, in
isolation, as conclusive proof of ownership. The sound legal approach is to
accord revenue records their proper evidentiary weight without confusing
administrative recognition with the substantive acquisition of title.
REFRENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Statutes
·
Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006, particularly Sections 31 and 40, as amended.
·
Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code (Amendment) Act, 2016, Act No. 4 of 2016.
·
Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, where applicable to the evidentiary questions arising in
proceedings governed by that enactment.
B. Judicial Decisions
·
Balwant
Singh v. Daulat Singh,
(1997) 7 SCC 137; AIR 1997 SC 2719.
·
Sawarni
v. Inder Kaur, (1996)
6 SCC 223.
How to Cite This Article
ISHANK CHOUDHARY, LEGAL NATURE AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF KHASRA AND KHATAUNI., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. Volume 4, Issue VOLUME 4 ISSUE 2, October 2026, pp. 1463-1476. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/details/legal-nature-and-evidentiary-value-of-khasra-and-khatauni-by-ishank-choudhary
Author & Publication Record
Authors: ISHANK CHOUDHARY
Registration ID: 107221 | Published Paper ID: WBL7221
Year: Oct- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 2
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 1463-1476
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied