which enables the Commissioner of MCH to reject application on ground of ownership of applicant being doubtful. The Court held that the Commissioner, if he so inclined, can always come to a prima facie conclusion whether the applicant for permission is owner or not, and in that regard the Commissioner may also invite objections if he so desires. The Court held that the Commissioner is required to make a pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the claim of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant for permission. It also stated that decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title on the applicant nor it would take away the rights of the objectors, be it the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. It also held that Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or ownership, and all that the Commissioner is required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purposes of granting permission and nothing more.
