Continuous possession by a party, supported by documented evidence, substantiates legal entitlement over disputed land despite conflicting historical claims.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for contesting respondents and Sri A.K.Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of State.

2. This case is arising out of title proceedings decided during consolidation proceedings.

3. Original petitioner has claimed his right over Khata No.50 i.e. Plot Nos.164, 165 and 166 situated in Village-Garthauli, District- Varanasi being 'Rent Free Grantee' as well as revenue entries of 1356 Fasli and at least upto 1361 Fasli, whereas original contesting respondents have claimed their right on basis of revenue entries of 1362 Fasli and at least till start of consolidation proceedings.

4. Objections filed by original petitioner were rejected by the Consolation Officer vide order dated 13.1.1977 mainly on ground that respondents have substantiated their rights being recorded on basis of an order dated 24/30.4.1954 passed by concerned Tahsildar and thereafter they continued in possession. The Consolation Officer has also returned a finding that since possession of contesting original respondents continued for more than 12 years and original petitioner has never taken any steps to evict them, therefore, original contesting respondents have perfected their right.

5. An appeal filed by original petitioner was allowed vide order dated 5.4.1977 and a finding was returned that order passed by Tahsildar in the year 1954 was surrounded by clouds of doubt as well as no benefit of irrigation slips could be granted to original respondents since they were in unauthorised possession. Relevant part thereof is extracted hereinafter:

(Emphasis Supplied)

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, original contesting respondent herein filed a revision petition which was allowed vide order dated 5.12.1977. The Revisional Authority not only placed reliance on an order passed by Tahsildar, but has also taken note that original petitioner has failed to file any irrigation slip or any other documents to prove their continuous possession, whereas it was further held that original respondents have been able to prove their continuous possession on basis of documents. This order is impugned in present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently placed his case that a well reasoned order passed by Appellate Authority was lightly and erroneously interfered by the Revisional Authority, without appreciating oral evidence as well as revenue records that original petitioner was recorded from 1356 Fasli to 1361 Fasli and thereafter contesting original respondents were recorded without any basis.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Revisional Authority has unnecessary given importance to non-submission of irrigation payment slips without considering that original respondents were in unauthorised possession of land in dispute since their names were recorded in revenue records, therefore receipts were issued in their name.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that order passed by Tahsildar was never placed on record and even details as mentioned in Goshwara it was a case filed by original petitioner and not by original contesting respondents.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in Ram Naresh and Ors. v. Dy. Director of Conso