Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3563
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Ayodhya Prasad - Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ B. No. 8516 of 1980
Decided On : 07-08-2015
For the Appellant : V.K.S. Chaudhary, Kunal Ravi Singh, R.K. Singh, R.S. Maurya and Ramesh Singh
For the Respondents: S.C., A.N. Misra, Chandra Kumar Rai, Faujdar Rai, Hari Shankar Mishra and N.P. Pandey
The central legal point established is that rights of adverse possession require continuous and consistent possession for the statutory period, and all relevant findings must be considered before making a decision.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Dispute over Khata Nos. 28 and 29 - Section 9-A (2), U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Sale-deed dated 20.7.1968 - Sections 229-B and 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over khata Nos. 28 and 29 of village Taunga Kalan, Pargana Khairagarh, District Allahabad involving 16 plots. Respondents claimed title based on adverse possession and 1/3rd share in khata No. 29 through a sale-deed. Petitioner contested the objection alleging fraudulent entries and imposter involvement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the entries in the revenue records were inconsistent and not continuous, and there were discrepancies in possession entries. The Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) was found to have erred in upholding the claim of the respondents without considering the findings of the Consolidation Officer (CO) and Settlement Officer, Consolidation (SOC). The court set aside the revisional order and remanded the matter back to the DDC for fresh consideration.
Issues: Discrepancies in possession entries, fraudulent entries in revenue records, validity of sale-deed, and errors in the revisional order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that rights of adverse possession accrue only if continuous possession is maintained for the statutory period, and discrepancies in possession entries are material. The court also emphasized the importance of considering all relevant findings before making a decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the DDC for fresh consideration.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Heard Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents. The dispute in the writ petition relates to khata Nos. 28 and 29 of village Taunga Kalan, Pargana Khairagarh, District Allahabad.
2. Only some of the plots of the aforesaid khata are said to be in dispute namely, 241/2, area 1-3-10 of Khata No. 28 and plots Nos. 49/1, 124/1, 125/1, 125/2, 126, 127/1, 131, 145, 157, 163M, 164, 165, 176, 244, 256 and 292, total of 16 plots having an area of 14-3-0. In the basic year record, the name of the Ayodhya Prasad, the petitioner was not recorded over khata No. 28 while over the khata No. 29 the name of Ayodhya Prasad, Smt. Sahdei widow of Sarju Prasad, and Smt. Lohari widow of Babu Lal were recorded as sirdar. There was an entry under class-9 in favour of the respondents who were to be found in possession during portal.
3. An objection under section 9-A (2) was filed by the respondents claiming title to the aforementioned plots on the basis of adverse possession. The respondents also claimed 1/3rd share in khata No. 29 on the basis of a sale-deed dated 20.7.1968 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Lohari in favour of the minor sons of Dwarika Prasad, Badri Prasad and Jagdish Prasad respectively. Thus, apart from the claim of the adverse possession, the claim of the respondents to 1/3rd share in khata No. 29 was based on this registered sale-deed.
4. The petitioner contested the objection alleging that Smt. Lohari was unheard of for last twenty five years and she would be presumed to be dead. A bhumidhari sanad was obtained by some imposter and thereafter a sale deed in favour of the respondents was also executed by the same imposter claiming to be Smt. Lohari. It was further alleged that proceedings under section 134 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for grant of bhumidhar is sanad in favour of the alleged imposter had been decided against her and upon failing to secure rights on the basis of the bhumidharis sanad, fraudulent entries in the records were made whereupon a suit under sections 229-B and 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by them which however abated on the start of the consolidation operations.
5. The Consolidation Officer (the CO) by his order dated 28.4.1976 rejected the objection on the finding that the notice under section PA-10 had not been issued and entries were in consistent and not continuous and did not contain the diary number etc. There existed no entries in the khasras of 1374 and 1375 fasli in favour of the objectors.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the CO, the respondents filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the SOC) on 4.7.1978.
7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation (the DDC) by the order dated 25.6.1980 allowed the revision and upheld the claim of the respondents. Hence this writ petition challenging the revisional order.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the DDC has allowed the revision without taking into consideration the findings recorded by the CO that the entries under class-9 were not continuous and inconsistent and that the diary number etc. of the Lekhpal were not mentioned therein.
9. The DDC also failed to take into consideration the findings recorded by the CO and the SOC that there were no entries of possession in favour of the respondents in the Khasras of 1374 and 1375 fasli.
10. It has next been submitted that there was no entry in the khatauni regarding any order of Supervisory Kanoongo in accordance with paragraph 433 of the Land Record Manual. The findings recorded by the CO and the SOC that notice under PA-10 was neither issued or received by the petitioners, was not reversed by the DDC in a judgment of reversal. The PA-10 issued in 1967 was fraudulent inasmuch as one of the petitioner was minor till 1369 fasli. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, it has been prayed that the order impugned be set aside.
11. Learned Counsel
