Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Imdad – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Rajendra Kumar Ojha, Advocate for Respondent-2 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Advocate for Respondents-3 and 5.
2. In the present case, dispute is in respect of a land situated at Khata No.243 at Village:Bankat, District-Azamgarh.
3. In the basic year, undisputedly, name of one of the petitioners Imdad @ Khurtalli and Sajjad (father of original petitioner no.2) were recorded in revenue records. During consolidation proceedings, two objections were filed under Section 9 -A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1953").
4. First objection was filed by Yasin son of Khedan and second objection was filed by Mohd. Sami and others (original respondent nos.2 to 5) and they claimed rights on the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 31.3.1973 executed by Yasin.
5. Before the Consolidation Officer, original petitioners claimed Sirdari rights on the basis of a Patta dated 27.7.1951 executed by Yasin in their favour which was made applicable since 1.7.1951 i.e. prior to date of execution of Patta.
6. Consolidation Officer allowed the objecti
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....
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 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.
The Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
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
