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
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:
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
Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan AIR 1965 SC 54 : (1964) 7 SCR 800
Goswami Shri. Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Union of India
M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das
Nath Singh v. Board of Revenue AIR 1968 SC 1351 : (1968) 3 SCR 498
P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma
Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja
Uttam Chand (Dead) through LRs v. Nath Ram (Dead) through LRs
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.
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....
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 in the judgment is the importance of following the mandatory procedures for recording possession in land records and the requirements for adverse possession.
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 court reaffirmed that mere revenue entries do not suffice to establish adverse possession, which requires demonstrable continuity, publicity, and intent to possess as owner, thus justifying the i....
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.