Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Ram Lal – Appellant
Versus
A. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Heard Sri. Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sabhapathi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. During consolidation proceedings a dispute arose relating to Khata Nos.68, 69, 108 and 110 of land situated in Village Siyaon Nankar. In the basic year Khata No.68 was recorded jointly in the name of Ram Tahal (father of original respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4) son of Bisheswar and Ram Lal (original petitioner) son of Dinai. Khata Nos.69 and 110 was recorded exclusively in the name of Ram Lal (original petitioner) son of Dinai whereas Khata No.108 was recorded in the name of Ram Tahal son of Bisheswar.
3. During consolidation, original petitioner Ram Lal filed an objection that land in dispute was acquired jointly by Bisheswar, Nageswar and Kalpu, who were brothers and sons of Parsu but Bisheswar being eldest of them and also being head of family, therefore, only his name was got recorded in the revenue record, whereas all were in cultivatory possession of land in dispute.
4. It is not much in dispute that out of three brothers, firstly Nageswar died issue-less, Bisheswar died thereafter and then widow of Nageswar died
A recorded tenant's consent is essential for an unrecorded co-tenant to acquire Bhumidhari rights; absence of such consent invalidates claims to ownership.
A recorded tenant's written consent is essential for an unrecorded co-tenant to acquire privileges under the United Provinces Agricultural Tenants Act.
The Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
It is worthy to note that on the death of a female bhumidhar succession to holding goes not to her heirs but to "nearest surviving heir of the last male bhumidhar". In other words it is the heirs of ....
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....
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....
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
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
