JUDGMENT : It has been found as a matter of fact by the Settlement Officer and also by the Deputy Director that the contesting respondents alone were actually in possession as khudkasht-holders and that the appellants were not. Only the respondents were recorded as khudkasht-holders, and the Settlement Officer found as a matter of fact that the entry was correct; this means that he did not find the appellants to be in actual or clutivatory possession of the land in dispute. He, however, treated them as khudkasht-holders, and subsequently as bhumidhars, merely because he thought that cultivatory possession of a co-proprietor was cultivatory possession of all co-proprietors. There never was any such law. Khudkasht rights were derived from cultivatory possession and not from possession over proprietary rights. It was legally and factually possible for one out of several co-proprietors to be in cullivatory possession of joint land and only that co-proprietor who was in cultivatory possession became khudkasht-holder. Possession over proprietary rights did not by itself confer khudkasht-holder's rights. Constructive or presumptive possession is over proprietary rights only. Cultivatory p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document