1. Criminal Angle

No clear criminal offence is made out against the Society.

• The Society acted within its by-laws — it purchased land, created plots, and allotted them by resolution through a valid quorum.

• The Society also offered to refund A’s money with interest.
  ➡️ Therefore, no cheating or criminal breach of trust (Sections 415 or 406 IPC) arises. The dispute is civil in nature, not criminal.

2. Revenue Record Entry

A’s entry as “Gair Marusi Kashtkaar” (unauthorized cultivator) does not prove ownership.

• Such entries only show possession, not title.

• Ownership arises only through an allotment letter, possession certificate, or registered conveyance deed, none of which A has.

3. Limitation and Delay

Yes, A’s claim is barred by limitation.

• The cause of action arose when his allotment was cancelled in 1995–96 and the plot was sold to C in 1997.

• A remained inactive for over 30 years.

• Under the Limitation Act, 1963, the maximum period for recovery of immovable property or declaration of title is 12 years from the date of dispossession.
  Hence, A’s civil claim is time-barred.

Conclusion:

• The case is civil, not criminal.

• A’s entry in the record doesn’t prove ownership.

• His claim is legally time-barred and unsustainable in court.

1) it is a civil dispute 

2) it is not proof of allotment 

3) claim is barred by limitation 

Dear Client,

Based on the facts, this appears to be a civil dispute, not a criminal one. The Society reserved the plot, asked members to complete formalities, cancelled the reservation only after A remained untraceable for years, and is still willing to refund his money with interest — which indicates no fraudulent intent. A’s entry as Gair Marusi Kashtkaar in revenue records does not prove ownership or allotment; revenue entries do not confer title. Since A did not complete allotment paperwork, never took possession, and did not assert rights for almost 30 years, his claim is likely barred by limitation, and he may at best claim refund, not ownership. Meanwhile, C has registered title and long-standing possession, which strengthens their legal position.

I hope this answer helps. For any more queries, do not hesitate to contact us.

1. No criminal case is maintainable on such grounds as there is no cheating either from the society or by C 

2. Mere allotment proof is not enough to claim the ownership of the property , 

- The society has taken step to cancel the allotment of A after proper notice 

3. The limitation period to claim ownership is limited to 12 years only, and hence even no civil case is maintainable.

1. Civil

2. Entry in revenue records is not proof of title

3. Barred by limitation. Plot sold in 1997 is claimed in 2012. Has A even explained what was he doing in the intervening period in his plaint or has he mentioned the date of his knowledge of allotment of the plot to B and then to C? Depending on the starting point of limitation the issue will be decided by the court 

Whether A informed society about change in address ? 

2) if not then how is society supposed to know his new address 

3) limitation would be from date of society resolution cancelling reservation in 1995 

Based on the facts as narrated, the issues involved are (i) whether any criminal offence is made out against the Society or subsequent purchasers, (ii) whether A’s entry in revenue records as Gair Marusi Kashtkaar proves ownership or allotment, and (iii) when the limitation period begins for A to file a civil claim and whether his claim is now time-barred. I respond point-wise:

1. Whether there is any criminal angle against the Society

On the given facts, no criminal offence is disclosed against the Society or the later purchasers. When A paid money, no specific plot existed. The Society reserved a plot for him but only on condition that he complete documentation and collect his allotment letter. He admittedly did not do so, gave a wrong address, never came forward for possession, and remained absent for more than 30 years.

Cancellation of reservation by a Cooperative Society through a valid Executive Committee resolution — after due notice and long non-compliance — does not amount to cheating, criminal breach of trust, or forgery, especially when:

• no allotment letter was ever issued;

• no possession was ever given;

• the money is still lying in the Society’s account and is refundable with interest;

• the subsequent allotment and sale to B and then to C were done by registered deeds and entered in Jamabandi.

Courts have repeatedly held that failure to allot or cancellation of an unperfected allotment is a civil dispute, not a criminal offence, unless fraudulent intention exists from the beginning — which is absent here.

Therefore no IPC offence such as Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B etc. is made out, and if A files a criminal complaint, it will likely be dismissed as “purely civil in nature.”

2. Whether entry as Gair Marusi Kashtkaar proves allotment or ownership

No. Entry as Gair Marusi Kashtkaar in revenue records does not prove ownership or allotment. It only means “unauthorised cultivator” or someone in permissive possession of land, not necessarily as owner. It is not proof of title and is at best an agricultural possession entry. It does not convert into full proprietary rights without:

• registered allotment deed or conveyance,

• possession delivered,

• mutation in ownership column, and

• entry of title in revenue records.

Courts have repeatedly held that Jamabandi entries are not documents of title and a person claiming ownership must produce a legal instrument (sale deed, gift deed, allotment letter, etc.).

Since A never obtained an allotment letter, never got mutation in ownership, and never took possession, his claim based on Gair Marusi entry alone is legally weak.

3. Whether A’s claim is barred by limitation — and from when limitation runs

Yes, A’s civil claim is almost certainly barred by limitation.

Under the Limitation Act, a suit for declaration of title or cancellation of another’s title must be filed within 3 years from when the right to sue first accrues, or within 12 years if claiming based on adverse possession or recovery of possession.

Here, the Society cancelled the reservation in 1995, re-allotted the plot in 1996, and it was sold and mutated in favour of C in 1997. That 1997 mutation and registered deed became a matter of public record, and that is the starting point of limitation.

Even if A argues that he did not receive the cancellation notice, he cannot escape constructive notice, because:

• mutation and sale deeds are public documents;

• Jamabandi is open for inspection;

• the entry continued to show him only as Gair Marusi, not owner;

• no allotment letter ever existed in his favour.

The courts have held that entry in public register is deemed notice to the whole world (Section 3, Transfer of Property Act; Section 114, Evidence Act).

Thus limitation starts no later than 1997, meaning the claim expired:

• for declaration of title: 2000

• for possession based on title: 2009

• for specific performance: 1999

• for challenge to resolution/allotment: 1998–1999

A filing in 2012 is barred by limitation by almost 15 years.

His later earth-filling in 2012 does not create possession rights nor extend limitation.

Additional point on “notice not received” argument

Even if A claims that the Society “sent notice to wrong address,” the law is clear: limitation does not depend on actual knowledge, once the relevant transaction is reflected in public records. Courts have said:

“Where a fact is capable of being known by reasonable diligence from public records, limitation runs from the date the entry is made, not from the date of alleged personal knowledge.”

Therefore A cannot extend limitation by saying he was “unaware.”

The matter essentially concerns the cancellation of a reserved plot by the Co-operative Society, subsequent allotment and sale to third parties, and your later claim of ownership. Based on the information provided, the following points merit consideration.

1. Regarding Criminal Liability of the Society
From the facts narrated, no criminal offence appears to be made out against the Society. The Society acted within the scope of its bye-laws and the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. There is no indication of dishonest intention or misappropriation. The fact that your payment continues to lie in the Society’s account, and that they are willing to refund it with applicable bank interest, supports the conclusion that their conduct was bona fide. The issue, therefore, is civil in nature and not criminal.

2. Effect of the Revenue Entry as “Gair Marusi Kashtkaar”
An entry as Gair Marusi Kashtkaar in the revenue record does not confer ownership rights. It merely denotes unauthorised cultivation or possession. Ownership can be recognised only if the individual’s name appears in the ownership column of the Jamabandi and is supported by an allotment letter, possession certificate, or a registered conveyance. Since you did not collect your allotment letter or complete the formalities at the relevant time, the entry as Gair Marusi Kashtkaar cannot serve as proof of title.

3. Commencement of Limitation Period
The limitation period for claiming a declaration of ownership or challenging the Society’s decision begins from the date when the person first became aware, or is deemed to have become aware, that his rights were denied.
In your case, the record has shown your status as Gair Marusi Kashtkaar since 1982. This is a matter of public record and constitutes constructive notice under law. Even if a later date—such as 1995, when the Society’s Executive Committee cancelled the reservation—is considered, the limitation period to bring a civil action would have expired by around 1998. A claim raised after three decades would therefore be clearly barred by limitation. The contention that you did not receive personal notice of cancellation is unlikely to extend or revive the limitation, since the public entry itself serves as sufficient notice.

4. Overall Legal Position
The Society appears to have acted in accordance with law by cancelling the reservation after your non-appearance and by subsequently allotting the plot through a proper resolution. The later purchaser (C) has acquired valid title through a registered sale deed and has remained in uninterrupted possession for nearly three decades. The title, in such circumstances, stands settled in favour of the present owner.

Given these facts, pursuing ownership at this stage would not be legally sustainable. It would be more pragmatic to accept the refund of your original deposit along with the bank interest offered by the Society and seek a formal acknowledgment of settlement to close the matter conclusively.

In summary:

• The situation does not attract any criminal liability.

• The revenue entry as Gair Marusi Kashtkaar does not establish ownership.

• The claim for ownership is barred by limitation.

• The current owner holds valid title through lawful conveyance.

• The advisable course is to accept the refund and formally close the matter.

This approach would safeguard your financial interest while avoiding unnecessary litigation that may not yield any legal relief after such a long lapse of time.

entry as "Gair Marusi Kashtkaar" only indicates possession or unauthorized/permissive cultivation, not legal title or a permanent right to the land.

2) Courts have repeatedly emphasized that entries in Jamabandi (records of rights) are not documents of title; ownership must be proven through a legal instrument such as a registered sale deed, gift deed, or formal allotment letter.

3) person claiming ownership or a permanent right based on a "Gair Marusi" entry has the burden to provide cogent evidence of a formal allotment, which typically does not exist with this status. 

you need to specify the proper facts for the said judgement and only after study in detail same can be suggested 

1. Does the above narration of facts give rise to a criminal angle on the part of the society?

No, the facts as presented do not strongly support a sustainable criminal case, particularly for cheating, against the society.

For a criminal case of cheating (Section 415 IPC) to be made out, there must be an intention to deceive from the very beginning. The sequence of events works against this allegation:

• Initial Bonafide Action: The society initially acted in good faith by accepting A's payment, purchasing the land, converting it, and even reserving Plot XYZ for A. Their actions at the outset were consistent with their agreement.

• A's Inaction: The crucial factor is A's own conduct. For over a decade (from 1982 to 1995), he failed to complete the documentation, collect the allotment letter, or contact the society. The society's claim that he was "untraceable" and provided an incorrect address is a significant point in their favor.

• Due Process by Society: Before cancelling the reservation, the society passed a resolution in its Executive Committee meeting (1995). This indicates they followed an internal administrative process, however flawed it may seem, rather than acting unilaterally or fraudulently.

• Subsequent Allotment to B: The plot was then allotted to B through a proper quorum (1996). B subsequently sold it to C through a registered sale deed (1997). This creates a chain of documented transactions.

• Offer to Refund: The society's willingness to refund A's payment with interest further undermines the allegation of a criminal intent to permanently deprive him of his money or property from the outset.

While A may feel cheated, the facts suggest this is primarily a civil dispute stemming from A's prolonged delay and inaction, followed by the society's administrative decision to cancel his reservation. For the police or a court to register a criminal case, a stronger element of fraudulent intent at the inception of the transaction would be needed. The society's actions appear to be a response to A's disappearance, not a pre-meditated plan to defraud him.

2. Does A claim that his entry in the revenue record as a Gair Marusi Kashtkaar serves as proof of allotment?

No, this entry is weak evidence of ownership and is more likely evidence of a temporary, possessory right that has long been superseded.

• Meaning of "Gair Marusi Kashtkar": This term translates to "unauthorized cultivator" or a person in possession without a permanent right of tenancy. In the context of land development, such an entry is often made to indicate that a person is in possession of a piece of land, but it does not confer title or ownership.

• Temporary Nature of the Entry: This entry was likely a procedural step during the transition from agricultural to residential land, signifying that A was the identified allottee in possession for the time being. It was never meant to be a permanent record of ownership.

• Superseded by Later Records: The most critical point is that this entry has been completely superseded by the subsequent mutation and Jamabandi entry in C's name in 1997. A registered sale deed is a far stronger document of title than an old revenue entry denoting temporary possession.

• A's Own Conduct Weakens its Value: A's failure to take steps to convert this temporary entry into a permanent ownership record for 30 years severely undermines any claim he now tries to base on it.

A's reliance on this revenue entry is misplaced. It does not prove a finalized allotment, and its legal value is negligible when compared to the registered title now held by C.

3. If A has made no effort for 30 years to change his entry from Gair Marusi Kashtkaar to “Owner” in the ownership column of the revenue record, is his claim now barred by limitation in a civil court?

Yes, his claim is almost certainly barred by limitation.

The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes strict time limits for filing lawsuits. For a suit to declare title and recover possession of immovable property, the limitation period is 12 years (Article 65 of the Limitation Act).

• Starting Point of Limitation: The clock for filing a suit started ticking from the moment A's right was allegedly infringed. The most critical dates are:

  • 1995: When the society passed the resolution cancelling his plot reservation.

  • 1996: When the plot was allotted to B.

  • 1997: When B sold the plot to C and C's name was recorded in the Jamabandi.

A became aware of a threat to his title, at the very latest, when C's name was mutated in 1997. The law expects a diligent person to enforce their rights within a reasonable time.

• The 30-Year Delay: A waited until 2012 to assert his claim. This is a delay of 15 to 17 years after the key events of 1995-1997, which is well beyond the 12-year limitation period.

• Earth-filling in 2012 is Irrelevant: A's act of sending laborers for earth-filling in 2012 is a belated and feeble attempt to create evidence of possession. It does not reset the clock for limitation, which had already expired years earlier. A court would view this as an act of trespass on a property legally owned by C.

Any civil suit filed by A after 2009-2010 (12 years from 1997-1998) would be barred by limitation. The court would likely refuse to hear the case on the merits because of this fatal delay.

Conclusion

Based on the facts provided:

1. A criminal case against the society is unlikely to succeed due to lack of fraudulent intent at the inception and A's own prolonged inaction.

2. The revenue entry of "Gair Marusi Kashtkar" is a very weak basis for a claim of ownership, especially when pitted against a registered sale deed.

3. A's civil claim is almost certainly time-barred due to his 30-year delay in asserting his rights.

The society's offer to refund his initial payment with interest appears to be the most pragmatic resolution for A, as his legal avenues to claim the plot itself seem to be extinguished.

The limitation period for A to file a suit most likely began in 1995-1997 (when the society cancelled his reservation and allotted the plot to B, and C's name was recorded), and not in 1982. However, even with this later start date, his 2012 claim is almost certainly barred by limitation.

A's argument that he never received the notice, while emotionally compelling, is a weak defense against the legal doctrine of constructive notice and his own gross negligence.

A's Argument: "I never received notice, so the clock didn't start."

• The Claim: A argues that because he was unaware of the cancellation resolution in 1995, the 12-year limitation period should only start from when he actually discovered the fraud, which he claims was around 2012.

• Legal Plausibility: This argument relies on the legal principle that the limitation clock starts when the "right to sue" accrues, which is typically when the plaintiff first has knowledge of the injury. If he can prove active concealment, the start date can be delayed.

The Society's (and the Law's) Counter-Argument: "Constructive Notice and Your Own Negligence Bar Your Claim."

The society's position is far stronger legally. Here’s why:

1. The "Gair Marusi Kashtkar" Entry was a Red Flag (Constructive Notice)

• Doctrine of Constructive Notice: In property law, entries in public revenue records (like the Jamabandi) are considered to be notice to the entire world. The law presumes that a person interested in a property will check these records.

• Application to A's Case: A's name was entered as "Gair Marusi Kashtkar" (GMK) around 1982. This entry itself was not proof of ownership but rather a temporary, possessory entry. A knew or should have known that this was an interim status. The law expected him to be vigilant and take steps to convert this into a permanent ownership entry (e.g., by getting the allotment letter and completing the mutation). His failure to do so for over a decade was the first major act of negligence.

2. The Critical Period: 1995-1997 - When the Right to Sue Accrued

This is the most important period. The limitation period did not start in 1982 because at that point, A still had a potential claim and the society had not yet acted against it.

The clock started ticking when an adverse event occurred that infringed upon his claimed right. This happened in two clear steps:

• 1995: The Society passed a resolution cancelling his reservation. Even if the notice was sent to an old address, the society took a formal, adverse action.

• 1997: This is the strongest starting point for limitation. When B sold the plot to C, and C's name was legally mutated and recorded in the Jamabandi as the owner, this was a public, documented act that was directly adverse to A's claimed rights. This mutation replaced A's GMK entry.

At this point (1997), the law imposes a "duty of care" on A. A person claiming ownership of a valuable property is expected to be reasonably vigilant. A period of 12 years of total inaction from this point (1997 to 2009) is fatal to his case.

3. A's Failure to Mitigate His Own Loss (The Principle of "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt")

This Latin maxim means "the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights." The court will heavily weigh A's conduct:

• 30-Year Inactivity: From 1982 to 2012, A took no concrete steps to secure his title. He never obtained the allotment letter, never corrected his address with the society, and never checked the revenue records to see his status.

• Incorrect Address: A's claim that the society had his wrong address will be viewed as his own fault. It was his responsibility to ensure the society, with whom he had a financial transaction, had his current contact details.

• The 2012 Earth-filling: This act will be seen as a desperate, after-the-fact attempt to create evidence of possession, not as a continuation of a rightful claim.

On Limitation

From when does the limitation period begin?

1. Most Favorable to A (but still weak): From 1995, when the society passed the cancellation resolution.

2. Most Legally Sound: From 1997, when C's name was entered in the Jamabandi via a registered sale deed, providing an unambiguous, public record adverse to A's claim.

Is A's claim barred?

Yes. Using the most favorable start date for A (1995), the 12-year limitation period expired in 2007. Using the 1997 date, it expired in 2009. A filed his claim in 2012, which is 3 to 5 years too late.

A's argument that he didn't receive the notice is unlikely to save his claim. A court will rule that:

• He had constructive notice through the public revenue records.

• He was grossly negligent in protecting his own rights for three decades.

• His claim is therefore barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The society's offer of a refund, while unsatisfactory to A, is likely the only remedy now available to him, as his legal right to the plot itself has been extinguished by time.

Limitation period begins from date of knowledge of A about the plot being allotted to B and thereafter sold to C

Society had allotted the plot to A upon A paying the purchase money  Collecting the allotment letter was merely a ministerial task. 

The fact that not only A but also other subscribers were shown as Gair Manusi Kashtkar in the revenue records shows that A was allotted the plot and only the paper work was remaining 

So society could not have allotted the plot to B without first canceling A's allotment and refunding his money 

Society will fail in the suit. A mostly likely will succeed. 

1. No, there's no criminal offence made out on the part of society except the negligence on the part of A for not acting upon the allotment.

2. Yes, that is an evidence to show that he was initially allotted with a plot, he can rely upon the evidence.

3. It can be considered as a time barred claim.

The period of limitation will start from the date of intimation sent to his original address.

Entries in these revenue records have presumptive correctness under certain statutes (for instance under “Section 44” or equivalent land-revenue law), until rebutted. They function as government-maintained record-of-rights, i.e. public documents.

But Courts have repeatedly held that revenue records / mutation / entries are not conclusive proof of title (i.e. ownership rights) — they are for revenue purposes, fiscal administration, taxation, etc. Title must often be proven by deed / registered instrument / chain of title, not merely by the fact that the name appears in jamabandi or mutation entries.

So while jamabandi entries are public / official / presumptive, their effect (e.g. constituting constructive notice) depends on which statute, what doctrine, whether mutation was challenged, whether notice was given for acquisition or other purpose, and whether statute imposes liabilities or notice obligations.

The doctrine of constructive notice generally refers to registered documents (e.g. a deed registered under Registration Act). It doesn’t necessarily extend automatically to revenue-records like Jamabandi entries (unless statute provides).