Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Dargahi – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Litigation Before Commencement of Consolidation Proceedings
It was not seriously disputed by rival parties that land in dispute is Plot No. 2157, area 3.74 acres, corresponding old No. 2023 and 728 in 1292 Fasli in Village Bari Gaon Tappa Bankat, Pargana Unwal, Tehsil Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur and predecessors in interest of petitioners have planted trees with permission of then Zamindar (predecessors-in-interest of contesting-respondents).
2. In the year 1887 a suit was filed by predecessors in interest of petitioners against then Zamindar which was decreed in terms of a compromise on 07.02.1887. It was accepted that 62 trees belongs to Nohar, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners.
3. In the year 1911, lots were prepared, wherein predecessors in interest of petitioners got 5/9 share, whereas predecessors-in-interest of respondents got 4/9 shares. Thereafter the village was brought under consolidation proceedings. A dispute still left, whether share was limited to number of trees or it has included the land also as well as its legal effect, if any.
4. A suit was filed which was dismissed. Appeal thereof was allowed and second appeal against a
Petitioners' failure to timely assert their land rights bars their claim under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
A recorded tenant's consent is essential for an unrecorded co-tenant to acquire Bhumidhari rights; absence of such consent invalidates claims to ownership.
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 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....
Reliance solely on historical land ownership entries without supporting evidence from parties can lead to erroneous conclusions, requiring a reevaluation of claims based on tangible evidence.
The court ruled that a plaintiff must establish rights through proper succession reporting and admissible evidence, and findings from criminal proceedings do not bind civil courts.
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
