Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Juned Alam – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
In the present case there is no serious dispute that rival parties belong to common ancestors.
2. A suit was filed under Section 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950") at the instance of petitioners wherein petitioners were granted 2/3 share whereas contesting-respondents were granted 1/3 share of disputed land.
3. Sri Vishnu Singh and Sri Kuldeep Gaurav, Advocates for petitioners and Sri Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate for contesting-respondents, have fairly submitted that though dispute before consolidation authorities was with regard of number of Gatas and Khatas, however, presently the dispute is only with regard to Khatas No. 176 and 333.
4. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.08.1973 has accepted the arguments of petitioners with regard to above referred two Khatas that it was a self acquired property and by Bakshisnama respondents were granted share to the extent of only 1/3, whereas 2/3 share remained with petitioners.
5. Aforesaid findings returned by Consolidation Officer was disturbed and interfered by Appellate Authority, i.e., Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide
The court upheld that concurrent findings by lower authorities on land ownership are not to be disturbed unless proven perverse, emphasizing the need for solid evidence in claims over ancestral versu....
Court upheld findings of lower authorities stating that the inability to prove family partition and validity of respondents' title under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prevailed, e....
The court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding co-tenancy rights and ancestral property, dismissing the writ petition due to lack of merit.
The court affirmed that lands classified as Shamlat Deh cannot be claimed for exclusive ownership without sufficient evidence of independent cultivation prior to 1950.
The Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
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 : A compromise having been filed before the Consolidation Officer, was not verified in terms of Rule 25A of the Rules of 1954, where it has been specifically provided that the Assistant ....
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
