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 interference of the Revisional Authority.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for respondents.

2. In present case, initially dispute was in respect of two parcel of land i.e. Gata No.361/1 area 0-2-10 and Gata No.399/1 area 0-14-10 situated in Village Nahri Tappa, now District- Siddharth Nagar, however, the petitioner has not pressed his claim in respect of Gata No.361/1-9-2-10 and, therefore, dispute remains only in respect of Gata No.399/1, 0-14-10.

3. Earlier there were proceedings between parties under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the "Act of 1950"). Suit was decreed in favour of petitioner. However, during appeal thereof, since consolidation proceedings commenced, in village concerned, therefore, appeal was abated. During consolidation proceedings, objections were filed by both parties under Section 9A (2) of Uttar Padesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the "Act of 1953").

4. The case set up by original petitioner was that his father was in possession of land in dispute and after his death, he continued in possession and for that revenue record of 1364- 69F and 1370-74F were referred.

5. Per contra, claim of original respondents was based on a registered Bainama dated 21.5.1963 executed by Smt. Mudai in favour of original respondents and that in pursuance of it, possession was handed over to original contesting respondents. The Consolidation Officer has framed following three issues:

"1. Whether Sadal etc. are bhumidhar of Plot No.361/0-2- 10, 399/1/0-14-10 on the basis of registered sale deed.

2. Whether Samber s/o Nagashar is sirdar in possession over plot No.361/0-3-10.

3. Whether Ram Lal s/o Nirhu is sirdar in possession over plot No.399/1/0-14-10."?

6. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties and considering documents on record accepted the objections filed by original petitioner and rejected the objection filed by contesting respondents vide order dated 30.8.1971. Relevant finding thereof are mentioned hereinafter:

"First I take the case of Ram Lal.

Ram Lal has stated that he is in possession since long. Sadal says that he is in possession from the date of sale deed. Sadal has not stated that previous to sale deed Bhan Shanker etc. were in possession. It means that they were in possession of Ram Lal before execution of the sale deed. Several evidence is against Sadal etc. and in favour of Ram Lal as regards papers the name of the father of Ram Lal is recorded in remarks since 1364F. to 1369F. and from 1370F to 1374F. of Ram Lal. After his name is recorded in class IX under the orders of S.K. Brahm Shanker etc. never ejected to Ram Lal. So Ram Lal became sirdar when Ram Lal became sirdar then Brahm Shanker etc. were not bhumidhar and were not entitled to execute the sale deed."

(Emphasis Supplied)

7. Contesting original respondents have preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. However, same was dismissed by order dated 30.12.1971. Though copy thereof is not on record. However, a typed copy thereof was handed over by counsel for petitioner during hearing which has not