Discrepancies between the Massavi and the Record of Rights in Levdora raise a larger question about the need for a systematic review of century-old land settlements.
Land records are the foundation of ownership, agricultural administration and public confidence in the Revenue Department. A small discrepancy in a revenue entry may appear insignificant on paper, but when it concerns the actual area of a field, it can become a serious problem for landowners, their successors and revenue officials.
During my service as Patwari of village Levdora, Tehsil Qazigund, District Anantnag, for two years approximately a decade ago, I came across a problem that deserves wider attention. My experience in the village revealed discrepancies between the areas recorded in the Record of Rights (RoR) and those indicated by the village Massavi, the original settlement map.
One example was Survey No. 10. Its area was recorded as 8 kanals and 11 marlas in the revenue record. However, measurement on the spot, with reference to the village Massavi, indicated an area of only 7 kanals and 5 marlas. The difference was 1 kanal and 6 marlas.
Similar discrepancies were observed in Survey Nos. 32, 64, 186 and several other fields. These observations raised a fundamental question: could some of these discrepancies have originated during the original settlement operations conducted approximately a century ago?
This was my professional observation during my tenure in the village. It calls for verification through the original settlement documents and a properly conducted technical survey before any conclusion is drawn about the cause or the correction required.
When the map and the record do not agree
The Massavi is not merely an old piece of paper. It is the original field-measurement map prepared during settlement operations. The Record of Rights, commonly associated with the Misal Haqiat, contains important information about landholders, their rights and interests, and the fields forming part of their holdings. The Jammu and Kashmir Government’s own explanatory material recognises the Massavi as the original settlement map and the Misal Haqiat as the record prepared at settlement or its revision.
These documents serve different but interconnected purposes. The map represents the spatial arrangement of fields, while the record documents the rights and particulars associated with them.
When the area entered in the RoR differs from the area established by a reliable survey of the corresponding field boundaries, the discrepancy cannot simply be ignored. Nor can it automatically be assumed that the figure in either document is correct in every respect. The original measurement sheets, field book, settlement record, village map, subsequent mutations and present ground position may all need examination.
The first task, therefore, is to establish the nature of the discrepancy. Is it a clerical or arithmetic mistake? Was the area incorrectly calculated during the original settlement? Has a field boundary changed over time? Is there an issue involving a subdivided field, a Min or Bata number, or a map that no longer corresponds accurately with the ground? Each possibility requires a different approach.
A settlement conducted a century ago
Levdora’s settlement dates back approximately one hundred years. The passage of such a long period makes the issue particularly important.
Over generations, land has passed through inheritance, partition, sale, acquisition and other forms of transfer. Revenue entries have been updated, while old maps and measurement records have continued to serve as the basis for identifying fields. If an error entered the record during the original settlement, subsequent updates may have carried that error forward without resolving its underlying cause.
Digitisation can make these entries easier to access, search and preserve. But digitisation alone cannot establish whether an inherited area figure accurately corresponds with the physical field. If an incorrect figure is transferred from an old record into a digital database, the discrepancy may simply acquire a digital form.
This is why the modernisation of land records must be accompanied by a mechanism for examining and resolving genuine historical discrepancies.
The legal question: what is the remedy?
The Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996, provides the legal framework for the preparation and maintenance of records of rights, annual records and related revenue matters. However, the appropriate remedy depends on the nature of the error, the documents available and whether any person’s recorded rights or interests would be affected.
Section 31 of the Act provides a presumption in favour of entries in records of rights and annual records prepared in accordance with law, until the contrary is proved. Section 32 provides a mechanism for a person aggrieved by an entry to seek correction before the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), subject to the applicable statutory requirements and limitation provisions.
These provisions are important, but a distinction must be maintained between an individual dispute over an entry and a possible technical discrepancy affecting several fields in an entire village.
Where a straightforward clerical or arithmetical mistake is established, the competent authority should examine whether it can be corrected through the applicable legal procedure. Where the discrepancy concerns the original measurement, field boundaries or the relationship between the Massavi and the RoR, a more detailed inquiry may be necessary.
The relevant provisions should be applied only after examining the facts of each case. An area discrepancy, by itself, does not authorise an official to alter a record without following the prescribed procedure and protecting the rights of affected parties.
What should the Revenue Department do?
The issue calls for a systematic, transparent and technically sound response. The following measures deserve consideration by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), the concerned Deputy Commissioner and the Survey and Land Records authorities.
First, conduct a preliminary village-level assessment. The original Massavi, Misal Haqiat, available field-measurement records, Jamabandi and subsequent mutations should be examined together. Survey numbers where the recorded area appears inconsistent with the map should be identified and documented.
Second, undertake a technical verification of the affected fields. Qualified survey personnel should examine the original map, reference points, field boundaries and available measurement records. Where necessary, fresh measurements should be conducted in accordance with the applicable rules. A discrepancy should be confirmed only after the relevant evidence has been assessed.
Third, provide notice and an opportunity to affected landholders. Where a proposed correction could affect ownership shares, possession or the rights of adjoining landholders, the persons concerned must be heard. A transparent process will help prevent a technical correction from becoming a fresh land dispute.
Fourth, classify the discrepancies. Clerical mistakes, arithmetic errors, map-related inconsistencies, disputed boundaries and substantive questions of ownership should not be placed in one category. Each requires the appropriate authority and procedure under the applicable law.
Fifth, establish a time-bound mechanism for genuine cases. A designated team of revenue and survey officials could examine the verified cases, record its findings and recommend action to the competent authority. The objective should be to resolve genuine discrepancies without subjecting citizens to unnecessary rounds of Tehsil offices.
Finally, preserve the original evidence. Any approved correction should be properly documented and reflected in the relevant records and digital system, with an audit trail showing the basis of the change. The original settlement documents must remain preserved for future reference.
A question beyond Levdora
My experience in Levdora was not a comprehensive survey of the entire village, much less of every village in Jammu and Kashmir. Nevertheless, it raises a question worth examining: are similar discrepancies present in other villages whose settlement records are many decades old?
The answer should come from evidence, not assumptions. The Revenue Department could consider a pilot assessment in selected villages where discrepancies have been reported. The findings would help establish whether the problem is isolated or whether a broader technical review is warranted.
Such an exercise would also help distinguish errors in recorded area from disputes over possession or title. These are not interchangeable matters, and treating them as such could create further complications for landowners and officials.
The human cost of an unresolved discrepancy
For an ordinary landholder, the area recorded in the Jamabandi is not an abstract figure. It can influence a land transaction, inheritance proceedings, a partition, a mortgage or the resolution of a boundary dispute.
When a citizen discovers that the recorded area does not correspond with the field as measured on the basis of the settlement map, the natural question is: where should the correction be sought, and what evidence will be accepted?
The administration must provide a clear answer. Citizens should not be left moving from one office to another merely because the discrepancy originated in an old settlement record that they had no role in preparing.
At the same time, the solution cannot be to change recorded areas indiscriminately. Revenue records carry legal significance, and a correction affecting rights must be supported by evidence and made by the competent authority under the prescribed procedure.
A humble appeal to the Revenue authorities
The case of Survey No. 10 in Levdora, along with the discrepancies I observed in Survey Nos. 32, 64 and 186, deserves examination through the original settlement records and a technically verified process.
I therefore appeal to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), the Deputy Commissioner Anantnag and the concerned Survey and Land Records authorities to consider a preliminary inquiry into the matter and clarify the procedure for resolving such discrepancies.
If the examination establishes that the problem originated in the old settlement, the department should determine the legally permissible way to correct the affected records. If the discrepancy arises from some other cause, the appropriate remedy should follow the evidence.
A century-old settlement should not become a permanent obstacle to accurate land administration. Modern technology can preserve and display revenue records, but their reliability ultimately depends on the accuracy of the underlying information.
The larger question is not simply how many records have been digitised. It is whether those records faithfully reflect the land they describe—and whether a citizen has a fair, accessible and legally sound remedy when they do not.
That is a question the Revenue Department should examine, not only for Levdora, but wherever similar discrepancies can be established.
