Unauthorized possession of Gaon Sabha property does not confer bhumidhari rights, and orders in summary proceedings do not confer rights.

S.N. Srivastava, J.

Present petition has been preferred assailing the orders dated 14.7.2003 and 29.4.2003 passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

2. The dispute in the instant petition takes within its sweep various plots, which were recorded as Gaon Sabha properties in the basic year. An objection was filed by the Petitioners u/s 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming bhumidhari rights over the properties on the dint of adverse possession as also by relying on varg 4 entry. The Consolidation Officer who was seized of the objection allowed the same and pronounced the Petitioners as bhumidhars over plots in question vide judgment dated 22.4.1995 attended with further direction to record the names of the Petitioners as bhumidhars after expunging entry naming Gaon Sabha. Against the said judgment, appeals came to be preferred by the Gaon Sabha which culminated in being allowed and consequently, verdict rendered by the Consolidation Officer was set aside studded with direction to record entry accordingly in the relevant revenue record in relation to plots in question. This decision rendered by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation gave rise to three revisions out of which two revisions were preferred against the appellate order, i.e., Revision No. 380/596 filed by Meharban (Petitioner No. 2) and Revision No. 376/592 preferred by Rizwan (Petitioner No. 1). These two revision came to be dismissed by means of judgment/order dated 14.7.2003, passed by Respondent No. 1. The third revision, namely, Revision No. 375/591 pertaining to khata No. 642 plot No. 2309 was allowed in part and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer. It is in this backdrop that the present petition has been preferred.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I have also been taken through the materials on record and the impugned orders.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners began his submission canvassing that since notices were withdrawn in proceedings arising out of Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, authorities below manifestly erred in not declaring disputed plot as Petitioners' bhumidhari. It was further canvassed that the Petitioners had already perfected their titles over the plots on the basis of adverse possession and consequentially, have already acquired bhumidhari rights, therefore, the impugned orders passed by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively were wholly erroneous and cannot be countenanced in law. Per contra, learned Counsel representing the Gaon Sabha contended that Petitioners could not be said to have acquired any bhumidhari rights over the property in question notwithstanding varg 4 entry in their favour and relied upon Amendment effected in Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976.

5. Indisputably, the plots in question were recorded as Gaon Sabha property in the basic year. There are no indicia on the record to vouch for the fact that on the date of vesting of property, Petitioners or their predecessors were recorded in the revenue records. As a matter of fact, the petitions are staking their rights to the property on the dint of adverse possession and by reliance on varg 4 entry. In essence, the main plank of the argument is founded on adverse possession and on varg 4 entry and not that the Petitioners or their predecessor had their names in the relevant revenue record on or prior to vesting of the property in the Gaon Sabha u/s 117 of the U.P. Z. A. and L.R. Act.

6. In the above fact-situation, the questions that boil down for consideration are (1) whether a person in unauthorised possession of Gaon Sabha property could acquire any bhumidhari right on grounds of adverse possession, and (2) whether an order passed by the authorities in a proceeding u/s 122B of the U.P. Z. A. and L.R. Act which culminated in dropping of proceedings could amount to a declaration of bhumidhari rights?

7. As regards the first question, reference may be made to am