Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Ghasitey -Appellant
Versus
D.D.C.and others -Respondent
W.P. No. 4157 (Cons.) of 1984
Decided On : 11-03-2011
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - Section 9(1) - Para A-60, A-80, A-81, A-102-C of U.P. Land Records Manual
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involves land plots in village Mirpur Qasaba, Bahraich. The petitioner claimed adverse possession and sought to be recorded as Bhumidhar of the plots. The Deputy Director Consolidation set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Revisional Authority found that the entries made by the Naib Tehsildar were not in accordance with the law, and the petitioner failed to establish the lawful procedure for adverse possession. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned judgment.
Issues: Dispute over adverse possession, validity of entries in land records, and compliance with the U.P. Land Records Manual.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that entries in land records must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Records Manual, and the burden of proof for adverse possession lies with the claimant. It emphasized the necessity of serving notice to the tenure holder and proving their knowledge of adverse possession.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the Revisional Authority.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The dispute in the instant writ petition relates to plots nos. 546/10,457/54 and 458/41 of village Mirpur Qasaba, Pargana and district Bahraich. According to the petitioner, he is recorded in part II of the Khatauni as a tenant of class-9 over the said plots and was found in possession of these plots in partal chakbandi also. The name of Putti Lal, who is father of the petitioner was recorded as tenant of class 9 from 1372 Fasli and after his death, the name of the petitioner was substituted in Part II of Khatanui and since then his name is intact in the record.
3. During consolidation operation in the area, the petitioner filed objections on 26.11.1979, under Section 9(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with the request that since he had been in continuous adverse possession over the said plots in dispute against the Khatedars for the last 20 years, he be recorded as Bhumidhar of those plots. Similar other tenants of Class-9 of other plots of the said khata also filed their objections. All the disputes relating to the plots of the said Khata no. 492 were registered in the office of the Consolidation Officer, Bahraich. The Consolidation Officer admitted the claim of adverse possession vide order dated 22.12.1980.Against the said judgement opposite party no.2 and 3 filed appeals but the same were dismissed by a common judgement and order dated 1.3.1982. Consequently, the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 filed revisions before the Deputy Director Consolidation Gonda. The revision filed against the petitioner was registered as Revision No. 1389/528/287. The Deputy Director Consolidation after hearing the parties and appreciating the materials on record allowed all the revisions including that against the petitioner and set-aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation).
4. It has been argued that the findings of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) regarding continuous adverse possession of the petitioner over the plots in dispute was not only based on the entries of class-9 tenant but also on the basis of entries of continuous possession in the respective khasra and rent receipts produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the Deputy Director has committed an illegality apparent on the face of the record in basing his judgement on the entries of class-9 tenant on Form PA-10 only and ignored other cogent evidence. Apart from the documentary evidence, there was oral testimony, which had supported the petitioner's case including the compromise made with Bhaggan and Kalloo conclusively prove the case of adverse possession of the petitioner over the plots in dispute since 1367 Fasli but the Deputy Director Consolidation apparently has acted illegally in not considering other evidence at all.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation fell into deep pit of error in not considering the fact that Sukha Singh, Charan Singh and Jeet Singh sons of Bhuri Singh and Smt. Sheetla Devi were recorded tenant whereas opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Ganda Singh, and they were having no locus to challenge bhumidhari claim of the petitioner.
6. On behalf of opposite parties nos. 2 and 3, it has been submitted that the plots in question originally belong to Kapoorthala Estate, Bahraich, who has given these plots to Sukha Singh and Jeet Singh [private respondents] and their names are also recorded in Khasra and Khatauni. Petitioner was engaged for ploughing and taking care of the plots as both of them were in government service. Similarly, Late Smt. Nand Rani had given her plots to the contesting respondents for ploughing and cultivation. Therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation after appreciating all these materials on record, which were wrongly ignored by the Consolidation Office, came to the conclusion that the entries were not made in the revenue record as per law and the petitioner has fa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
