Point Of Law: It is important to appreciate the question of intention as it would have appeared to the paper-owner. The issue is that intention of the adverse user gets communicated to the paper owner of the property. This is where the law gives importance to hostility and openness as pertinent qualities of manner of possession. It follows that the possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice and opportunity to the paper owner

JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard, Shri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. On the statement of learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4 Shri M.P. Yadav that the legal heirs and representatives of the respondent no. 4 have entered into compromise with the petitioner and they are no longer interested in pursuing the matter and only respondent no. 3 wishes to contest the case, it is recorded in the order dated 04.01.2021 and he argued only on behalf of respondent no. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.05.1994 passed in Revision No. 1658, under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein-after referred as Act of 1953) by the respondent no. 1.

3. The dispute in the instant case relates to plot no. 4350, area 0-18-0 of Khata No. 518 which was recorded in the name of Gherai S/o of Rekhai and Plot No. 3908 and 3909 of Khata No. 577 which was recorded jointly in the name of Dargahi S/o Sampat i.e. respondent no. 4 and Gherai S/o Rekhai in the basic year of consolidation started from 22.08.1978. However on the aforesaid plots the name of father of petitioner namely Sarju Singh was recorded in clause-9. However, during verification (Padtal) possession of Shri Kamla Pratap Singh S/o Akchhaibar Singh was found.

4. On publication of records, four objections were filed under Section-9A of the Act of 1953. One by Kamla Prasad Singh S/o Akchhaibar Singh claiming the right on Gata No. 4350, area 0-15-0 on the basis of possession. Second objection was filed by the father of the petitioner Sarju Singh claiming plot no. 4350 area 0-15-0 on the basis of continuous possession from prior zamindari abolition consequently being bhumidar and adverse possession by virtue of entries in clause-9 on plot no. 3908 area 0-8-0 and 3909 area 0-9-0. The third objection was filed by Babu Lal i.e. respondent no. 3 claiming succession on plot no. 3908, area 0-8-0 and 3909, area 0-9-0 on account of death of his father Gherai S/o Rekhai. The fourth objection was filed by Ram Sukh Singh and others. The objections of Kamla Prasad Singh and others was rejected for want of prosecution. The objections of Ram Sukh Singh and others for co-tenancy was also rejected. The objections of the petitioner in regard to plot no. 4350, 3908 and 3909, on the basis of clause-9 entry, was rejected. The objections of respondent no. 3 were allowed by the Consolidation Officer by means of the order dated 17.04.1986.

5. Being aggrieved the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (here-in-after referred as SOC) by means of the order dated 21.12.1987 and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was amended. The name of the petitioner was directed to be recorded in Gata No. 4350, 3908 and 3909. The respondents no. 3 and 4 filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (here-in-after referred as DDC) and the order dated 21.12.1987 passed by the SOC has been set-aside and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been upheld. Hence the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.05.1994 passed by the DDC.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the name of the father of the petitioner was recorded on the plots in question on the basis of order passed by the supervisor Kanoongo on 23.02.1965 under P.A. 10 in place of Bhagauti Deen S/o Samsher which is apparent from a copy of Khatauni of 1369-73 Fasli, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner alongwith the Supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that name of the father of the petitioner was recorded in 1385 Fasli also. The entry, in the name of the grand father of the petitioner