Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Mohammad Sami And Others – Appellants
Versus
Additional Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and others – Respondent
Writ B No. 52 of 1991
Decided on : 27-01-2022
Adverse Possession - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 48 - 240A, 240B - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, particularly Section 48, and Sections 240A and 240B of the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954. The court highlighted the requirements for adverse possession, the procedure for recording possession in land records, and the consequences of acquisition of rights under Section 240A and 240B.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the quashing of an order allowing the revision filed by the deceased opposite party under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The dispute centered around adverse possession and the possession of disputed land plots.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Assistant Director of Consolidation erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two authorities below regarding the entries of the opposite party. The court held that the possession recorded over the disputed land was without authority of law and illegal, and the order allowing the revision was not tenable in law.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the possession recorded over the disputed land, the requirements for adverse possession, and the procedure for recording possession in land records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following the mandatory procedures for recording possession in land records, the requirements for adverse possession, and the consequences of acquisition of rights under Section 240A and 240B of the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 29.1.1991 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya Ji), whereby Revision No.31/15 filed by Ale Hasan, opposite party no.2 (now dead) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short ‘the Act’) was allowed.
2. The Assistant Director of Consolidation vide impugned order while allowing the revision, had directed for deletion of the name of the petitioners from the land in Gata Nos.294/0-19-15, 295/0-18-0 and 296/0-17-0 which are part of Khata No.48 and for recording the name of opposite party no.2 as intermediary bhumidhar in the record of 1360 Fasli.
3. During the consolidation proceedings, opposite party no.2 (since deceased) filed objection in respect of the land of three plots of Khata No.48 i.e. 294, 295 and 296 claiming sirdari rights on the basis of his adverse possession. The dispute between the parties could not be reconciled before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer. Opposite party no.2 in order to establish the adverse possession, filed copies of the Khatauni of 1350 Fasli and un-certified copy of Khasra of 1355 Fasli. Opposite party no.2 also filed Khatauni of 1356 Fasli, wherein the disputed plots were recorded in Part-II of Khatauni, but in Khasra of 1359 Fasli, it was found that name of opposite party no.2 was written in the remarks column after scoring out the name of some other person.
4. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.12.1979 rejected the objection filed by opposite party no.2 after considering the evidence and submissions placed by the parties. The Consolidation Officer framed two issues for decision, which are as under :-
2. Whether the petitioners herein are in possession of the land in dispute as sirdar and whether the entry in Column-9 in favour of Ale Hasan is a forged entry ?”
5. The Consolidation Officer held that entry in Column-9 in favour of opposite party no.2 was not made in accordance with Paras A80 and Para A81 of Land Records Manual and, therefore, opposite party no.2 could not claim adverse possession in respect of the land in dispute. So far as the receipts regarding land rent and canal dues were concerned, it was said that petitioners had already filed an FIR about the missing of these receipts and, therefore, the same could not be relied on to hold the possession of opposite party no.2 over the land in dispute and thus, the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of opposite party no.2.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26.12.1979 passed by the Consolidation Officer, opposite party no.2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 23.4.1982 dismissed the appeal filed by opposite party no.2. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that opposite party no.2 himself had admitted that his father was Shikmi Khasthkar of the disputed land, which means he was a sub-tenant of the disputed land. A sub-tenant recorded in 1358 Fasli could not claim to be adhivasi and, he could not become sirdar as claimed by him. As per the provisions of Sections 240A and 240B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, every adhivasi became sirdar on the date immediately preceding the appointed date i.e. 30.10.1954 after the State Government notification issued in the official gazette. For ready reference, Sections 240A and 240B read as under:-
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.
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....
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 : 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 judgment established that prior adjudications regarding land rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can operate as res judicata in subsequent consolidation proceedings, reinforcing the finality of ....
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
