Possession in 1359 Fasli alone does not confer sirdari rights, and lawful right to possession is necessary. Section 209 of UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act has an impact on ejectment.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

Heard Shri S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The case was taken up in the revised list, but none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to the land of khata no. 150 situated in village Itai Khujari, Tappa Puraina, Pargana Amodha, Tehsil Haraiya, District Basti.

4. In the basic year record, this land was entered as sirdari of respondent no. 3, Bhagwati, since deceased and represented his heirs. The case of the petitioners in the objection was that the land in dispute was their sirdari land and they were recorded in the main column as chief tenants. Their names were surreptitiously and fraudulently scored out and the name of the Bhagwati was entered without following the prescribed procedure under the Land Record Manual. They also claimed that they inherited this land from their grandfather, as daughter's son and have been in cultivatory possession ever since.

5. The respondent contested the objection on the ground that the plot in dispute was lying vacant before the abolition of zamindari and he cultivated the same and has been paying its rent and has been in possession ever since.

6. The Consolidation Officer (the CO) by his order dated 24.10.1978 allowed the objection and directed that the land in dispute be recorded as sirdari of the petitioners, after expunging the name of the respondents.

7. In appeal the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the SOC) by his order dated 27.01.1981 held, on the basis of an evidence filed at the appellate stage, that the respondent no. 3 had been recorded in possession over the land in question in 1359 Fasli in CLRD proceedings. He further held that since the respondent was entered in possession in 1359 Fasli, he would, on the abolition of zamindari acquire adhivasi rights and subsequently would become the sirdar of land in question.

8. The Deputy Director of Consolidation (the DDC) by his order dated 20.01.1981 dismissed the revision affirming the appellate order.

9. It is the appellate and revisional order which are, therefore, impugned in this writ petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entry made in 1359 Fasli was merely an entry of 'kabiz' which appears to have been recorded in CLRD proceedings. He further submits that the case of the respondents was that the plot in question was lying vacant prior to the abolition of the zamindari and he had occupied the same and on its basis. Therefore, possession was recorded as 1359 fasli.

11. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is two fold; first, that the entries made in CLRD proceedings are not conclusive and do not determine the title of the parties. Therefore, his contention, is that the Correction of Land Records Drive (CLRD) proceedings were summary proceedings and, therefore, no sanctity can be attached to the entries made in such proceedings.

12. The second submission, is that merely by the entry of 'kabiz', in 1359 fasli will not only to confer sirdari rights. Along with possession, it is necessarily required to be pleaded and established that this possession had sense legal sanctity. A person recorded as an occupant in 1359 fasli as to establish a lawful right to be in possession.

13. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Smt. Sonawati & others vs. Sri Ram & another reported in 1968 RD (151) wherein it has been held that the possession of a person in wrongful occupation cannot be deemed to be cultivatively possession and the same will not confer adhivasi rights upon such occupants.

14. The next submission of the leaned counsel for the petitioners is that if the case of the respondent is accepted then the land in 1359 fasli was vacant and in such contingency the entries in favour of the respondent should have been made in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 85 of the Land Records Manual.

15. I have considered the submissions made