Back
2010 Supreme(All) 3402
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vikram Nath, J.
Yadunath Singh and others -Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hamirpur and others -Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 4155 of 1975
Decided On : 27-09-2010
The main legal point established is that for adverse possession of agricultural land, possession must be continuous and established every year, and the procedure for issuance of PA 10 must be followed.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, U.P. Zaminadari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 - Section 9A(2), Section 210 - [Section 9A(2), Section 210]
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition was filed to quash the judgments and orders related to a land dispute. The dispute involved adverse possession and the recording of names over a plot in Village Kunwakhera, Pargana Sumerpur, Tahsil and District Hamirpur.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the entries of possession were inconsistent and not continuous, and the procedure for issuance of PA 10 was not followed. The courts concluded that the claim of adverse possession was rejected due to lack of continuous possession and non-compliance with procedural rules.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of adverse possession claim, the consistency of possession entries, and the procedural compliance for issuance of PA 10.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for adverse possession of agricultural land, possession must be continuous and established every year. The procedure for issuance of PA 10 must be followed, and any deviation or non-compliance would vitiate the entry.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the courts found no merit in the arguments and concluded that the findings based on material evidence were pure findings of fact, not warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction.
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the judgement and order dated 21.2.1974 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in Appeal No.319 of 1974, Dibra versus Sri Yadunath Singh and others and the judgement dated 19.12.1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh Camp at Hamipur passed in Revision No. 978 of 1974, Yadunath Singh and another versus Dibra and others, whereby the claim of the petitioners over the land in dispute, on the basis of the adverse possession, had been rejected and after setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer it had been directed that the basic year entries be maintained.
2. The dispute relates to Khata No.93, Plot No.154/25 area 6.01 acres, situate in Village Kunwakhera, Pargana Sumerpur, Tahsil and District Hamirpur. In the basic year records the name of Dibra, respondent no.4 was recorded. Objection was filed by Yadunath Singh, Mrig Raj Singh and Brij Raj Singh, sons of Raja Ram Singh under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the CH Act) claiming that their father Raja Ram Singh was in possession over the plot in dispute and after his death they have continued in possession and that they have matured their rights under Section 210 of the U.P. Zaminadari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ZA Act) and as such their names may be recorded over the plot in dispute after expunging the name of Dibra, the opposite party in the objection. This objection was registered as Case No.2189 of 1973-74 in the Court of the Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur. Dibra filed written statement denying the claim of the objectors and alleged that the objectors had no right, title or interest over the land in dispute. The alleged entry in their favour is not in accordance with law. At the time of 'partal' the objectors were not found in possession but in fact the sons of the objectors were found in possession. The sons have not filed any objection and as such no rights can accrue to the objectors. It was prayed that the objection be dismissed.
3. Parties led both oral as well as documentary evidence. On behalf of the objectors Yadunath Singh (one of the objectors) and Gore Lal were examined as witnesses and on behalf of Dibra, his son Ram Charan was examined. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.1.1974 came to the conclusion that Raja Ram Singh was in possession over the plot in dispute and thereafter his three sons, the objectors were in possession and that they had matured their rights under Section 210 of the ZA Act. He also recorded a finding that the entry in P.A. 10 was validly made after due notice to Dibra, the recorded tenure holder. On these findings he directed that the name of Dibra be expunged and in his place names of the objectors Yadunath Singh, Mrig Raj Singh and Brij Raj Singh, sons of Raja Ram Singh be recorded as Sirdar.
4. Dibra filed an appeal under Section 11 of the CH Act before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur which was registered as Appeal No.319 of 1974, Dibra versus Yadunath Singh. Before the Appellate Court certain documentary evidence were filed which included photo copy of the PA10, Diary of the Lekhpal etc. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide judgement dated 21.2.1974 considered the documentary and oral evidence in detail and recorded the following findings-
A(i) Yadunath Singh, one of the objectors who had appeared as witness stated that he had no knowledge as to when his name was recorded in Class 9.
(ii) Yadunath Singh admitted that Plot No.154 was a huge plot and he was not aware of the boundaries of the Plot in dispute No. 154/25 measuring 6.01 acres.
(iii)He did not know what crops were sown in the last 3 years.
5. On such consideration the Settlement Officer recorded that Yadunath Singh had no knowledge of the status and location of the plot in dispute as such could not be
