Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Bhanwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
| 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 af
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.
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.
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.
The court established that there is no limitation for filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, affirming the petitioners' continuous possession and rights over the disputed lan....
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.
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....
Point of law: opinion Section 8 is not attracted in the case of leases of land where the purposes of the leases is to use the land for the purpose of agriculture, horticulture, pisciculture etc. It i....
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
