Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Bhanwar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. And Others - Respondents
WRIT -B NO. 4087 OF 1983.
Decided On : 08-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.S. Chaturvedi, Anil Kumar Tiwari, H.O.K. Srivastava, Rajendra Singh
For the Respondent: N.C. Rajvanshi, A.K. Sirvastava, Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi,S.C., Vishesh Rajvanshi

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.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 20 - Writ petition challenging concurrent findings related to land ownership disputes under consolidation proceedings - The Court upheld that relevant date for determining rights of parties is based on the vesting date, which was established as 01.07.1952. The term 'Adhivasi' does not negate the established rights of the respondents. (Paras 10, 19, 29)

(B) Legal principles related to occupancy and possession in land rights - The court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities should not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or beyond jurisdiction. (Para 31)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner contested decisions regarding land disputes, asserting that the relevant date for ownership rights should be 01.07.1952, citing failure to prove unlawful occupancy by the respondents prior to that date.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decision of lower authorities regarding the vesting of land rights under the applicable acts with respect to the determined dates.

Issues: The key issues addressed were the determination of the correct relevant date for occupancy rights and whether the term 'Adhivasi' affected the ownership claims of the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that rights are determined based on statutory provisions indicating the date of vesting, and terminology used in previous rulings does not affect lawful entitlements.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. litigation history and appeals background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of land and parties' claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8)
3. the case concerns ongoing legal disputes arising from property claims. (Para 6)
4. petitioner's arguments on zamindari act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. arguments presented revolve around the legal interpretation of land rights. (Para 16)
6. the court analyzed statutory provisions and historical contexts relevant to the land dispute. (Para 18 , 27)
7. legal provisions concerning land rights. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24)
8. the determination of relevant dates and legal terminology is crucial. (Para 25)
9. criteria for 'cultivatory possession' established. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
10. court's dismissal of petition and costs. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

This writ petition is pending since the year 1983. In first round of litigation, a case arising out of Section 9 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1953'), reached upto the Deputy Director of Consolidation and vide order dated 23.02.1981 matter was remitted back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeals afresh.

2. On remand, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 19.01.1982 has rejected the appeal filed by original petitioner and partly allowed the appeal filed by original respondent no.4. Thereafter a revision was preferred against order dated 19.01.1982 by original petitioner but was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 05.02.1983.

3. In brief facts of the case are that a Khata No.114, situated at Village Mohammadpur Khurd, Pargana Hastinapur, Tehsil Mawana, District Meerut, was comprised of several plots bearing Nos.30, 52, 53, 71, 101 and 102.

4. On commencement of consolidation proceedings, one Kalu (predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7) filed objections in respect to the Plot No.30, under Section 9A(2) of Act of 1953 claiming to be its Bhumidhar. In respect of Plot Nos.52, 53, 71 and 101, Dal Singh (Original Respondent No.4) filed objections claiming right on basis of adverse possession. On Plot No.102, Dal Singh (Original Respondent No.4) was found to be in possession during a Partal and therefore has filed objections claiming his right in respect of said plot.

5. The Consolidation Officer has allowed objections of Kalu (predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7) in respect of Plot No.30 as well as allowed claim of Dal Singh (Original Respondent No.4) in respect of Plot No.52, however, rejected his objections in respect to the Plot Nos.53, 71, 101 and 102. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:-

(Emphasis supplied)

6. Since both the parties were aggrieved by aforesaid order of Consolidation Officer, therefore, they preferred two separate appeals.

7. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation by an order dated 05.07.1978 dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant/original petitioner Bhanwar Singh, however, partly allowed the appeal filed by Dal Singh (Original Respondent No.4).

8. As referred above, the aforesaid order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was challenged before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 23.02.1981, allowed the revision petition and remanded case to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the appeals afresh. On remand, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/original petitioner Bhanwar Singh and partly allowed the appeal filed by Dal Singh (Original Respondent No.4) as held in earlier round that Original Respondent No.4 (Dal Singh) has also proved their claim on 4 Plots No.53, 71, 101, however claim on Plot No.102 remained rejected. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:-

(Emphasis supplied)

9. Thereafter, two revisions filed by the rival parties, were dismissed by order dated 05.02.1983. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:-

(Emphasis s