Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Jagdev – Appellant
Versus
Harihar Nath – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. litigation history and findings on possession rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding rights of possession and eviction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. responses to petitioner's claims challenged by respondents. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. analysis of legality of mortgage and possession status. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. application of legal provisions governing possession. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. final decision to allow writ petition. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
This is second round of litigation during consolidation proceedings. In first round matter reached upto the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it was remitted back to Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide afresh.
2. On remand, an appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 07.09.1974, whereby possession of petitioner/ appellant was found continuous from 1954, on basis of a mortgage deed and it was held that since no proceedings were undertaken for eviction, therefore, he was settled with the right of Bhumidhari, whereas respondents were found neither in possession nor otherwise held to be entitled for right on land in dispute. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:
(Emphasis su
Possession rights determined under applicable land reform statutes where continuous possession without eviction claims grants rights irrespective of mortgage validity.
Possession of mortgagees in land disputes is deemed permissive, ceasing to be adverse post-mortgage extinguishment under relevant Acts, hence limitations governed by those acts apply.
The judgment established that the issuance and extension of Patta, as well as the fulfillment of conditions for land ownership, are crucial in determining the rights of the petitioner.
Possession for over 12 years confers sirdari rights; established orders must be recognized by revenue authorities to amend records suitably.
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.
Claims of possession based on zamindari settlements must be substantiated with evidence, particularly where consolidation proceedings have abated prior actions.
Continuous possession by a party, supported by documented evidence, substantiates legal entitlement over disputed land despite conflicting historical claims.
Possession under an executory contract does not confer rights of adverse possession, as it is considered permissive rather than adverse.
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
