SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Jagan Nath and Others - Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. and Others - Respondent
WRIT - B NO. - 8439 OF 1984.
Decided On : 04-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: H.C. Saxena, B.G.Yadav, N.K.Saxena, R.K.Yadav and Vijay Chaurasia
For the Respondent: S.K. Srivastava, A.K.Srivastava, Avinash Swroop, D.S.Yadav, Devendra Singh and S.C., Sandeep Kumar and Vinod Swroop

Adverse possession requires continuous, open, and hostile possession, which must be proven with adequate evidence beyond mere irrigation slips.

Headnote:(A) Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 48 - Adverse possession - The dispute involves land recorded in the name of original respondents, while petitioners claim possession based on irrigation slips and continuous cultivation. The Revisional Authority found that petitioners failed to prove their rights, as irrigation slips alone do not establish ownership. (Paras 6, 11, 30, 32)

(B) Adverse Possession - The court reiterated that adverse possession requires proof of continuous, open, and hostile possession, which was not established by the petitioners. (Paras 24, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed rights over disputed plots based on continuous possession and payment of irrigation dues, while respondents asserted their rights as legal heirs of previous tenure holders. (Paras 3, 4, 20)

Findings of Court:
The Revisional Authority found that the petitioners did not establish their claim of adverse possession or ownership based solely on irrigation slips. (Paras 30, 32)

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners could establish ownership based on irrigation slips and whether the Revisional Authority's interference was justified. (Paras 11, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere possession or irrigation slips do not confer ownership rights without proper legal backing and evidence. (Paras 24, 28)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri. Manvendraa Nath Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri. Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. R.C. Singh,learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri. Devendra Singh, learend counsel for respondents.

2. Present case is an outcome of consolidation proceedings and dispute is in respect of Plot Nos.364, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 and 371 of Khata No.124, of Village:Dwasi, Pargana: Kulpahar, District-Hamirpur.

3. According to averments made in writ petition in basic year aforesaid plots were recorded in Khata No.124 in the name of original respondent nos.2 and 3. However, Pankhiya, brother of the petitioners was in continuous possession over above referred land in dispute, even before Zamindari was abolished, in his own rights as tenure-holder.

4. During consolidation proceedings, said Pankhiya filed an objection that names of original respondent nos. 2 and 3 were illegally recorded and it was alleged that they have no right, title, interest and possession over land in dispute. It was further alleged that petitioners were paying land revenue and irrigation dues throughout. It was further averred in writ petition that one Kenda was illegally recorded as tenure holder and after his death, his widow Gauri Dulhan was also illegally recorded. She died leaving a daughter Puniya (original respondent no.4). It was further alleged that names of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were illegally recorded.

5. Respondent nos.2 and 3 also filed objections claiming themselves to be legal heirs of Kenda and Gauri Dulhan, alleging that they have acquired rights over land in dispute on basis of adverse possession. However,original respondent no.4 Smt. Puniya, daughter of Kenda, also filed objection alleging herself to be legal heir of Gauri Dulhan. She has alleged that she, Kenda and Gauri Dulhan, were all disabled persons and as such Pankhiya will not get any right over the land in dispute on basis of his alleged possession.

6. The Consolidation Officer considered rival submission and vide order dated 14.9.1980 allowed objections filed by Pankhiya and it was held that he was in possession over land in dispute before abolition of zamindari. It was further held that original respondent nos. 2 and 3 have no right, title or possession over land in dispute and cultivatory possession of Pakhiya was adverse and he has matured his rights over land in dispute. Relevant part of aforesaid order is reproduced hereinafter:

    ^^mijksDr c;ku ls Li"V gS fd QjhdSu ds njf;eku utnhdh fj'rk ugha gS utnhdh fj'rk rFkk vkil esa ,d nwljs dh fo'okl dh ckr lkfcr ugha gS tgkWa rd loky dsUMk xkSjh nqYgu o iqfu;k ds v{ke gksus dk gS bl ij fopkj rHkh djuk mfpZr gksxk tc iqfu;k dks tsM0,0 ,.M ,y0vkj0 ,sDV dh /kkjk 157 dh izksVsD'ku gkfly gksA tsM0,0,y0vkj0 ,sDV dh /kkjk 157 ds fy;s [kkrsnkj dk dsoy bUVsjsLV gksuk i;kZIr ugha gS cfYd lkFk lkFk ;g Hkh t:jh gS fd fMl,scqYM O;fDr us viuh Hkwfe dks iV`s ij tqrok;k gSA v{ke O;fDr ds f[kykQ Hkh dCtk eq[kkyQuk ds vk/kkj ij dkfctnkj dks tsM0,0,y0vkj0 ,sDV dh /kkjk 210 ds vUrxZr rgdwd gkfly gksrs gS dsoy v{ke gksus ds vk/kkj ij gh dksbZ O;fDr tsM0,0 ,.M ,y0vkj0 ,sDV dh /kkjk 157 dk ykHk ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA v{ke O;fDr dks dkuwu ds dsoy ;g lgwfy;k nh xbZ gS ;fn og pkgs dks viuh tehu dks fdlh vklkeh dks iV`s ij mBk ldrk gSa dUV~sDV vkQ Vsuslh lkfcr gksuk t:jh gSA

    bl eqdnesa esa ;g daV~sDV lkfcr gksus dh ckr rks vyx jgh dUV~sUV iqfu;k dh rjQ ls IyhM ugha fd;k x;k gS ckr dsoy benkn ysus dh dgh xbZ gS vkSj lkFk esa ;g dgk x;k fd bl benkn ds cnys esa iaf[k;k dks mfpr izfrQy ns fn;k tkrk FkkA ,slh dksbZ ckr IyhfMaXl esa ;k lcwr esa ugha dgh xbZ fd iaf[k;k dks vkjkth utkbZ iV`s ij mBkbZ xbZ FkhA cVkbZ ij nsus dh ckr Hkh ugha dgh gS dsoy behnkn ds ckr dgh xbZ gS bl izdkj iqfu;k dks tsM0,0,y0vkj0 ,sDV dh /kkjk 157 dh izksVsD'ku gkfly ugha gSaA oknh iqfu;k us v{kerk dk vk/kkj dsoy tsM0,y0 ,.M ,y0vkj0 ,sDV dh /kkjk 157 dh ykHk mBkus ds fy;s Fkk vkSj pwWafd ;g izksVsD'ku mijksDr fooj.k ds vuqlkj gkfly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top