Point of Law : Civil Law - Possession - A party laying his claim on basis of adverse possession in some property has to prove as to date, time and manner in which possession is converted into open, hostile and adverse possession.

ORDER :

1. Heard, Shri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rajeshwar, learned counsel for legal heirs of opposite party no.3 i.e. 3/a and 3/b. Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 05.03.1979 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 ( here-in-after referred as the Act of 1953) and the judgment and order dated 09.12.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad.

3. The facts, in brief, for adjudication of the present controversy are that the plot no.486/1 area 17 biswa and 10 dhur of Khata No.15 situated in village Simai Mohiapur, Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad was recorded in the name of Tazdar Khan, father of the petitioners as 'bhumidhar' in the basic year. The land in dispute was initially recorded in the name of one Zahoor Khan, which was subsequently came to be recorded in the name of Smt. Samagira. It was sold by Smt.Samagira by a registered sale deed dated 01.09.1965 to the father of the petitioners. Three objections were filed under Section 9(2) of the Act of 1953. One by Atta Abbas with the allegation that the sale deed executed by Smt. Samagira was not valid. Second objection was filed by Shiv Raj-opposite party no.3 (now dead and substituted by legal heirs) claiming the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. The third objection was filed by one Dhanju in respect of plot no.627. The petitioners filed objection to the objections claiming the entire property. The Consolidation Officer held Atta Abbas entitled to half share in land in dispute alongwith Tazdar Khan and also allowed in favour of the opposite party no.3 Shiv Raj and Dhanju by means of order dated 16.01.1972.

4. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer was challenged in four appeals filed by one Atta Abbas and three by Tazdar Khan, the father of the petitioners. The appeals were decided by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by means of order dated 13.03.1972 by a common judgment. The appeals of Tazdar Khan, father of the petitioners were allowed and the appeal filed by Atta Abbas was dismissed and the name of Tazdar Khan, father of the petitioners was directed to be continued in the revenue records. A revision was filed by Atta Abbas, Dhanju and Shiv Raj i.e. opposite party no.3 bearing revision No.1640 under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was decided by the Joint Director of Consolidation by means of order dated 18.03.1976 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide a fresh in regard to the two issues considered and examined by the Joint Director of Consolidation.

5. The learned Settlement Officer Consolidation reconsidered the entire dispute including the present dispute with the opposite party no.3 and allowed the appeal of Tazdar Khan in whose place the petitioners were substituted in appeal on his death with respect to the dispute between them and Atta Abbas and the appeal of Atta Abbas was dismissed. The appeal of Tazdar Khan against the opposite party no.3 and others in regard to the present dispute was also dismissed. The appeal of Tazdar Khan against Dhanju was also allowed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order a revision was filed by the petitioners and another revision was filed by Atta Abbas. Both the revisions were dismissed by means of order dated 09.12.1980 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence the instant writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that four appeals, one by Atta Abbas and three by Tazdar Khan, father of the petitioners were decided by a common judgment and order dated 13.03.1972. One revision No.1640 under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 was filed by all the three, but the revision was decided only in regard to two