IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JAYANT BANERJI, J.
Ramji And 3 Others - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others - Respondents
WRIT - B NO. - 531 OF 2023.
Decided On : 03-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought in writ petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of disputed property and previous orders. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments on jurisdiction and rights claims. (Para 5 , 9) |
| 4. counterarguments on claims of title. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. judicial reasoning and factual assessments. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. principles governing revenue records. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. conclusion and directions for future claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
Jayant Banerji, J.
The aforesaid writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
2. The properties in dispute are Plot Nos.1017/2 and 1018 in Village-Mulhawan (Gosaipur), Tehsil-Sadar, District Mirzapur. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor-in-interest, namely Ganesh Prasad, was recorded to have been in possession of the plots in dispute in the khatauni of 1359 fasli. Consequent to the enactment of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, all estates were vested in the State with effect from 01.07.1952 which corresponds to the fasli year 1359. It is stated that in the basic year khatauni 1359, the name of the aforesaid Ganesh Prasad was recorded in possession of the plots in dispute whose class of tenure was mentioned as 'zaman-8' which denotes land held by 'adhivasis'. Consequent to a notification dated 13.10.1954 under Section 240-A of the Act, 1950, the aforesaid Ganesh Prasad, who was recorded as 'adhivasi', became 'sirdar' of the land in dispute. The consequence of Chapter-II of the Act, 1950, which contains the consequences of vesting, etc., did not apply to 'sirdari' rights, which had accrued in favour of the aforesaid Ganesh Prasad under Section 240-B of the Act, 1950. In khatauni of 1362 fasli, the aforesaid Ganesh Prasad was recorded as 'sirdar' (Class-II) with regard to the plots in dispute. By virtue of Section 139 of the Act, 1950, all persons who had acquired sirdari rights by operation of law became bhumidhar and, accordingly, the aforesaid Ganesh Prasad acquired bhumidhari rights on the disputed property. During consolidation operations held under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 Consolidation Act, in the Statement of Principles, the disputed land was not earmarked for public purpose (land vested in Gaon Sabha or Local Authorities under Sections 117 and 117-A of the Act, 1950). After requisite formalities, CH Form-2A was prepared by the Consolidator in which the aforesaid Ganesh Prasad was recorded as 'sirdar'. After the final consolidation scheme came into force, CH Form-45 was prepared and the aforesaid Ganesh Prasad was recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights with regard to the plots in dispute.
3. On a complaint filed by the respondent no.5, proceedings under Section 33 /39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 Land Revenue Act were initiated and the Tehsildar submitted a report on the direction of the Sub- Divisional Officer concerned. An objection was filed by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the petitioners also contested the case before the Sub-Divisional Officer. By the impugned order dated 16.09.2013, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the names of the petitioners to be struck off from the revenue records and the words 'talab' and 'bheeta' be incorporated in the revenue records over the plots in dispute. The revision filed by the petitioners against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 16
Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan
Gram Sabha, Kudra v. Noor Mohd Khan
Hinchlal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi
Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab
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 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.
Irrigation slips alone do not establish ownership or adverse possession; adequate evidence and lawful possession are required to substantiate claims over land.
Adverse possession requires continuous, open, and hostile possession, which must be proven with adequate evidence beyond mere irrigation slips.
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....
Fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights; land designated as forest is public utility land and cannot be claimed without proper legal basis.
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 wa....
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.
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.