Courts Can Presume Official Acts Of Revenue Officers Were Regularly Performed Under Section 114 Evidence Act: Gujarat High Court

"The law permits the Court to presume that his work was done in his official capacity. Since no rebuttal evidence was led by the defendants and they did not allege any mala fides in the act of the Revenue Officer, the finding of fact that there is an encroachment cannot be said to be perverse." Gujarat High Court, in a judgment dated July 10, 2026, held that maps and measurements prepared by a designated Revenue Officer in their official capacity carry a presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

A bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat observed that in the absence of evidence alleging mala fides or rebuttal evidence, courts are justified in relying on such official records to determine instances of encroachment on public roads.

The matter arose from a Second Appeal filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant against concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The original plaintiff had filed a suit alleging that the defendants had illegally encroached upon 10 feet of a 20-foot-wide public road, which was reserved for ingress and egress in an approved layout plan. Both lower courts had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, directing the removal of the permanent structures built on the public way.

The primary question before the court was whether the map prepared by a Talati-cum-Mantri (Revenue Officer) could be discarded as "unauthorized" in the absence of a specific resolution or prior intimation. The court also examined the scope of interference under Section 100 of the CPC regarding concurrent findings of fact based on such official evidence.

Presumption Of Regularity Under Section 114 Evidence Act

The court focused extensively on the evidentiary value of the map prepared by the Talati-cum-Mantri, produced as Exhibit 63. The appellant argued that the officer was not authorized to prepare the map and had not given prior intimation. Rejecting this, the court noted that the officer acted in his official capacity upon receiving an application for the removal of encroachment.

The bench observed that under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the law permits the court to presume that official acts have been regularly performed. Since the Talati was a designated Revenue Officer under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, his site inspection and subsequent mapping were protected by this legal presumption unless proven otherwise.

"The law permits the Court to presume that his work was done in his official capacity. Since no rebuttal evidence was led by the defendants and they did not allege any mala fides in the act of PW-3, I am of the considered opinion that the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be said to be either perverse or grossly erroneous."

Onus Shifts To Defendant To Disprove Encroachment

The court highlighted that once the plaintiff produced the official map and the testimony of the Revenue Officer to prove the encroachment, the onus of proof shifted to the defendants. The bench noted that the defendants failed to lead any contrary evidence or call witnesses from the Revenue Department to dislodge the official findings.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that the defendant, during cross-examination, expressed ignorance about the perimeter of the construction and the illegal structures. The bench emphasized that mere denial is insufficient when weighed against official documentary evidence produced by a public servant discharging his duties.

Duty Of Panchayats To Remove Obstructions

Referring to Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, the court noted that it is the statutory duty of the Panchayat to remove any obstruction or encroachment upon public streets. Therefore, the act of the Talati-cum-Mantri in measuring the area to identify such obstructions was entirely within the four corners of the law and could not be termed unauthorized.

"As per Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, it was the duty of the Panchayat to remove any obstruction or encroachment upon public streets... the act done by the local Village Panchayat cannot be said to be unauthorized or illegal."

Limited Interference In Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC

The court reiterated the settled position of law regarding the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in a Second Appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth (2026), the bench held that findings of fact, howsoever erroneous, cannot be reopened unless they are perverse or contrary to mandatory provisions of law.

Justice Shelat observed that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on a "preponderance of probabilities," which is the standard of proof in civil litigations. As the lower courts had detailed the evidence and the defendants failed to prove any inherent defect in the trial's reasoning, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The High Court concluded that there was no perversity in the findings of the lower courts regarding the 10-foot encroachment on the 20-foot-wide public road. Finding the appeal devoid of merits, the court dismissed the Second Appeal and the connected stay application, upholding the decree for removal of the encroachment.

Date of Decision: 10 July 2026