Point of Law: Right to claim title on basis of adverse possession - Any entry made on basis of adverse possession same was to be communicated to person concerned and person claiming is required to prove that it was in accordance with manual and as to what was nature of possession and when it started in the knowledge of tenant and the possession was continuous and how long it continued.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri D.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Uma Shankar Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. The respondents no.2 to 4 are the court concerned.

2. This petition has been filed against the judgment and orders dated 21.02.1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer (here-in-after referred as C.O.), 05.09.1975 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation (here-in-after referred as ASOC) and 20.09.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (here-in-after referred as DDC).

3. The dispute in the instant writ petition relates to Gata No.542 / area 0-4-16 of Khata No.47 of Village-Simra Tappa Haweli, Pargana-Bidha, Tehsil-Tanda, District-Faizabad now Ayodhya. The name of the petitioner namely Hardeo was recorded as Bhumidhar of Gata No.542 in the basic year of consolidation alongwith Rampher, Shiv Das and Sudama being the co-tenure holders. However, they have not claimed any right on the plot in question as it has been stated that the petitioner had got the land in dispute in partition. The possession of the respondent no.1 i.e. Sita Ram was recorded under clause-9 in the revenue records. On coming to know the petitioner had filed a suit for eviction but during pendency of the suit the consolidation proceedings started therefore the suit was abated. Therefore the petitioner had filed an objection under Section 9(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as Act of 1953) on 14.01.1974. The petitioner had also filed an objection regarding deficiency of some area of some other plots on 14.01.1974 but the same was not found proved by the Consolidation Authorities and before this Court also no arguments were advanced in regard to that. The respondent no.1 had filed objection to the objection / claim of the petitioner. The matter could not be settled before the Assistant Consolidation Officer therefore it was referred to the C.O. for decision on merit. The C.O., after the evidence adduced by the parties, considered the matter and rejected the objection / claim of the petitioner and directed to struck off the name of the petitioner from Gata No.542 and record the name of the respondent no.1 as Sirdar. Being aggrieved the petitioner had filed an appeal bearing no.9301 under Section 11(C) before the SOC, which was also rejected by means of the order dated 05.09.1975 by the ASOC. The Revision No.293 / 728 under Section 48 was filed by the petitioner which was also rejected by means of the judgment and order dated 20.09.1982. Hence the present writ petition has been filed. During pendency of the present writ petition the petitioner and the respondent no.1 died, therefore their legal heirs have been brought on record.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent no.1 had not filed any objection under Section-9(2) even then the C.O. proceeded on the assumption that the objection was filed by the respondent no.1 and the title of the case was also shown as Sita Ram Vs. Hardeo illegally and in mala fide manner. The objection of the petitioner was rejected in an arbitrary, illegal and in a mala fide manner on the basis of adverse possession of respondent no.1 without fulfilling the conditions and continuity of possession. The C.O. also failed to consider the mandatory provisions of issuance of PA-10 and it's service in case of entry of clause-9 on the basis of adverse possession. The C.O. merely on presumption, has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the petitioner might have been recorded. A finding in regard to filing of the eviction suit with delay has also been recorded by the C.O. on the basis of presumption but the appellate and the revisional authorities have not recorded any finding in regard to the alleged delay in filing the suit because it was filed within time. The le