Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Sabhai And Another – Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation Faizabad – Respondent
WRIT - B No. - 2255 of 1982
Decided On : 22-12-2023
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9, Section 11(1), Section 48.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State-respondents as also Sri Shachindra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party.
2. By means of present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.09.1978 and 27.03.1982 passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad and respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, respectively.
3. Before proceeding in the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to indicate that Writ Petition No.1220 (Consolidation) of 1981 was filed by Musai, Ram Prasad and Bans Raj and the same was dismissed on 28.04.2016 and has not been restored.
4. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the name of one Ghurai was recorded in the revenue record related to Khata No.162 situated at Nathmalpur, Hateria, Pargana-Birhar, Tehsil-Tanda, District-Faizabad now Amebdkar Nagar. The land/ plots indicated in Khata No. 162 is the subject matter of this petition. These plot(s) have been indicated in the impugned order dated 27.03.1982 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation as Gata No.301/1, 301/2, 301/3, 301/4, 313, 362/1, 362/2, 537/1, 537/2, 523/1 523/2, 552/1, 552/2 and 373/2 and total area 2-17-0.
5. In the basic year Khatauni of Khata No. 162 names of Dukhi and sons of Khelawan namely Ram Hans, Ram Singar and Ram Pyare were recorded.
6. It is to be noted that the case of the side opposite is that the Ghurai was the father of Dukhi and Khelawan.
7. With regard to Khata No.162 before the Consolidation Officer one objection was filed present petitioners and another objection was filed by Musai and Others. Petitioners in their objection indicated that the name of Dukhi S/o Ghurai and Ram Hans, Ram Singar, Ram Pyare all sons of Khelawan have wrongly been indicated in the revenue record. In the objection filed by the petitioners they also stated that entry in the revenue record in favour of Dukhi and legal heirs of Khelawan in fact is a forged entry as father of Dukhi and Khelawan was Shiv Baran. In support of this contention they filed the copy of statement dated 23.09.1966 of Dukhi recorded in Case No. 1977 under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and copies of compromise filed in Case No. 9006 and 894 under Section 9 of the Act of 1953 related to Khata No. 86 situated at Village-Tikuria Bujurg.
8. It is apparent that before the Consolidation Officer the claim of the petitioners was mainly based upon the plea of adverse possession.
9. In another objection preferred by Musai and one Smt. Karma, they claimed their right over Khata No.162 by saying that they are actual legal heirs of Ghurai. Smt. Karma claimed herself as daughter of the Ghurai and Musai claimed himself as son of Karma.
10. With regard to claiming rights over the land, in issue i.e. Khata No.162, as stated, the petitioners based their claim on entries in Khasra of Fasli Year(s) 1366-1377, 1366-1367 and 1377-1379 and Khatauni of Fasli Year 1359.
11. It is indicated that Khasra and Khatuani bears an entry based upon PA-10 with date and dairy number. On the basis of entries in the Khasra and Khatauni the petitioners claimed themselves as recorded Sirdar.
12. The oral evidence was adduced by the petitioners to support their claim. On the other side, the oral evidence was also adduced by Smt. Karma, Musai and others before the Consolidation Officer. Dukhi S/o Ghurai and sons of Khelawan also adduced the evidence before the Consolidation Officer.
13. It would be apt to refer here that for proper adjudication of the case/objections the Consolidation Officer framed following four issues:-
14. It would also be apt to refer here that in the order of Consolidation Officer it has specifically been indicated that no other issue was pressed by the parties appearing before the Consolidation Officer.
15. The Consolidation Officer, upon due consideration particularly favourable entries made
The burden of proof is upon the person claiming rights over the land on the basis of adverse possession to prove that the entries in the revenue record were made in accordance with the mode and manne....
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 owne....
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, h....
Adverse possession requires continuous, open, and hostile possession, which must be proven with adequate evidence beyond mere irrigation slips.
Irrigation slips alone do not establish ownership or adverse possession; adequate evidence and lawful possession are required to substantiate claims over land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the mandatory procedures for recording possession in land records and the requirements for adverse possession.
A claim of adverse possession must demonstrate clear, hostile, and continuous possession for over 12 years, supported by genuine records; incorrect or surreptitious entries do not confer any rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
