The Allahabad High Court ruled that a claim under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 cannot be decided on isolated revenue entries. The court held that adjudicating authorities must examine the entire chain of revenue records to determine rightful possession and ownership. Deciding a claim on a single or selective entry, without tracing the continuous thread of revenue entries, amounts to a legal error vitiating the order.

Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act) provides a remedy for persons illegally evicted from land — it allows them to seek restoration of possession before revenue authorities. The Allahabad High Court's ruling reinforces a foundational principle of land tenure law: revenue records are not standalone documents but constitute a chain, and each entry derives its legitimacy from what preceded it.

The constitutional underpinning here is Article 300A, which protects persons from being deprived of property except by authority of law. When a revenue authority ignores part of the evidentiary chain and decides a possession claim on a selective entry, it effectively deprives a person of property without a lawful, reasoned process — which is precisely what Article 300A prohibits.

The broader doctrinal point connects to the T. Jacob line of cases on subsoil and land rights: proprietary claims over land — whether surface rights or subsoil rights — must be traced through a legally recognised chain of title or possession. An isolated revenue entry, like an isolated piece of evidence, cannot displace an otherwise established chain.

For CLAT PG, the examiner typically pairs a judicial passage with a fact pattern where an authority relies on one record to defeat a longer-standing chain of possession. The correct answer always requires the aspirant to identify whether the authority applied a holistic or selective evidentiary standard — and whether the deprivation of the property right was backed by a legally sound process.