Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Smt. Rani Jai Ratan Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. And Others - Respondents
Writ B. No. 9357 Of 1978
Decided On : 20-05-2024
U.P.C.H. Act - Consolidation of Land Holdings - Sections 4, 9-A(2), 11, 48 of U.P.C.H. Act; Sections 240-G, 240-H of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - The court discussed the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act and U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, particularly focusing on the rights of Bhumidhar and Asami, the concept of res judicata, and the adjudication of title. The court emphasized that the earlier adjudication under Section 240-G of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act operated as res judicata in the consolidation proceedings, thereby affirming the petitioner's rights over the disputed land.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over land ownership in village Patka Bogha, where the petitioner claimed rights as Bhumidhar based on a patta executed in 1929. The respondent contested this claim, asserting rights as Sirdar based on earlier records. The matter went through various consolidation proceedings under the U.P.C.H. Act and U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, with conflicting decisions at different levels.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the earlier judgment under Section 240-G of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which recognized the petitioner as a disabled person and Bhumidhar, was binding and should operate as res judicata in the consolidation proceedings. The court concluded that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had erred in dismissing this earlier adjudication.
Issues: The main issues were whether the earlier adjudication under Section 240-G operated as res judicata in the consolidation proceedings and whether the petitioner's claim as Bhumidhar was valid against the respondent's claim as Sirdar.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the earlier adjudication under Section 240-G of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act constituted a final determination of rights that should be respected in subsequent consolidation proceedings, thereby affirming the principle of res judicata in land disputes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation, and maintained the order of the Consolidation Officer recognizing the petitioner as Bhumidhar.
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) :
1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Arpan Shrivastav, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Shri Sharad Chandra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that village Patka Bogha, Pargana, Khairagarh, District Allahabad came under consolidation operation by way of notification issued under Section 4 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") in the year 1971. According to petitioner No.1 a patta was executed by Raja Sahab in favour of petitioner No.1 in 1929 for maintenance as petitioner No.1 was living separately from her husband and petitioner No.1 being disable to do cultivation sublet the land to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the Basic Year of Consolidation Operation, petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhar of the plots of Khata No.3 situated in aforementioned village as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition and respondent No.3 was recorded in class-7 as Asami. During consolidation partal, Plot No. 110/3 and 240/2, one Deotadin claimed to be in possession of the plot in dispute. Plots of Khata No. 3/1 was recorded in the name of respondent No.3-Sampat in Class-7 as Asami. Plot of Khata No.1 as mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the writ petition was recorded in the name of petitioner No.1, Rani Jai Ratan Kaur as bhumidhar and respondent No.3-Sampat was recorded in Class-7 as Asami. Plot of Khata No.3 were also recorded in the name of petitioner No.1-Rani Jai Ratan Kaur and respondent No.3-Sampat was recorded in Class-7 as asami. One plot No.73/3 area 3 biswa 10 biswansi of khata No.3 was recorded in Class-9 category in the name of respondent No.3- Sampat. Plots of Khata No.8 were recorded in the name of Shri Sant Bux Singh as Bhumidhar. The disputed plots which were recorded in the name of petitioner No.1-Rani Jai Ratan Kaur was stated to be transferred later on in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Against Basic Year Entry an objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent No.3/Sampat for expunging the entry of class-7 and for recording his name as sirdar. Respondent No.3 contested his claim on the ground that he was recorded in 1356 fasli and 1359 fasli, as such, he became Adhivasi and later on Sirdar. It was also pleaded by opposite party No. 3 that Petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of Raja Bhagwati Prasad Singh, is not a disabled person and the entry of Class-7 as Asami in respect to respondent No. 3 is incorrect and is liable to be expunged. On behalf of petitioner No.1. the claim was set up that petitioner No.1 is a disabled person in view of adjudication took place by a competent court, as such the judgment passed by competent court declaring petitioner No.1 is a disabled person will operate as res-judicata between the parties. It was further pleaded on behalf of petitioners that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 obtained a disputed land by exchanged from petitioner No.1. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.03.1972 rejected the objection filed by contesting respondents and ordered to record their name as Asami as well as the name of Ramhit was ordered to be expunged from Plot No. 73/3, area 3 biswa, 10 biswansi and the name of Deotadin was also ordered to be expunged from Plot No. 110/3, area 2 biswa & Plot No. 240/2 area 10 biswa. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.03.1972 by way of four appeals under Section 11 of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer Consolidation which were registered as Appeal Nos.86 to 89. The aforementioned appeals were consolidated and decided by common judgment dated 03.07.1972 dismissing the aforementioned appeals. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed four revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of
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.
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
The Court upheld that the relevant date for determining land rights is the date of vesting, and concurrent findings of authorities should not be disturbed unless proven to be perverse.
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....
The main legal point established is that rights recognized by statute could be settled through conciliation, and a compromise would not be valid if it violated the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Rules.
An ex parte decree operates as res judicata in subsequent proceedings unless it is set aside by the court that passed it.
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
