IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Rajdev - Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. and Others - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 8181 OF 1978.
Decided On : 06-12-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding land ownership under the act, 1953. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. issues of evidence and claims evaluation. (Para 3 , 14) |
| 3. findings of settlement officer and revisional authority on land status. (Para 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments presented by both sides regarding land ownership. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's application of reason against findings. (Para 9) |
| 6. error in upholding basic year entry despite parties failing to establish claims. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. writ petition allowed in part; matter remitted for fresh order. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
This case is arising out of a proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short "Act, 1953") in respect of a dispute regarding plot no. 941, khata no. 110 situated in village Agraha, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur.
2. It is not in dispute that in basic year, name of Ram Chandra s/o Ajudhia i.e. original respondent no.4 was recorded. The original petitioner before this Court had filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 claiming to be co-sharer of land in dispute to extent of 1/3. Another objection was filed by one Ratipal Singh and others, claiming to be owners of trees standing on land in dispute.
3. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the evidence, oral as well as documentary, on 05.07.1973 rejected the objections submitted by petitioners. The claim of Ratipal (respondent no.5) in regard to ownership of trees was rejected since no evidence was found. The Consolidation Officer has framed following four issues and relevant findings thereof are mentioned below -:
1& D;k jktnso flag o jsthr flag xkVk ua0 941@84 ds 1@3 ds Hkwfe/kj ekfyd gSaA
2& D;k jfriky flag vkjksi xkVk ua0 941@84 ds cSnkj ekfyd dkfct gSa vkSj xkVk futkbZ esa muds isM+ fLFkr gSaA
3& D;k fookfnr xkVk [kkrknkjksa dk ckx gSA
4& [kkrs dk foHkktu D;k gS\
i{kksa dks lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj fn;k x;kA muds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdkZsa dks lquk x;k RkFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA blh vk/kkj ij okn fcanqvksa ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA
okn fcanq&2
jfriky flag us viuh vkifRr dks iqf"V lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k rFkk eqdnek dh iSjoh NksM+ nh gS vr% mudh vkifRr [kkfjt gksuh pkfg;sA okn fcanq rnuqlkj fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
okn fcanq&1
jktnso flag us xkVk futkbZ ds laca/k esa udy [kljk cankscLr 1287 Q0 izLrqr fd;k gSA ftlesa xkVk 941@&84 esa tehankj crkSj ekfyd ntZ gSA fooj.k ds ikus esa dkQh isM+ksa dh rWQ~lhy ntZ gS rFkk vehj flag iq= ljtw flag o lfyj flag iq= nsoh flag o jfriky flag iq= Hkxokunhu flag o jUuw flag o lothr flag iq= f'kouanu flag dkfct ntZ gSA blh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij mudk dguk gS fd jkuw flag tks muds firk ds 1@3 ds ekfyd o dkfct Fks bl fy;s mudk uke 1@3 Hkkx ij ntZ fd;k tkosA jkepanz flag dk dFku gS fd xkVk futkbZ esa fLFkr iqjkus isM+ fxj x;s blds ckn muds firk us tehankj ls iqu% izca/k djkds u;s isM+ yxk;s x;s gSa mUgksaus bldh iqf"V esa udy [krkSuh 1356 Q0 izLrqr dh gSA bl [krkSuh esa vk;ks/;k flag ¼QVk gS½ fteu 8 esa ntZ gSA rFkk vU; xkVksa ds lkFk fookfnr xkVksa ijs ¼QVk gS½ 1 lky ntZ gS [kljk cankscLr gky ns[kus ls irk pyrk gS fd dkfct ds [kkrs esa v;ks/;k flag dk uds firk dk uke dkfct [kkrs esa ntZ ugha gS vkSj u vU; fyf[kr [kkrsnkjksa dk bl Hkwfe ij dHkh ntZ gqvk v;ks/;k flag dk uke igys igys 1356 Q0 esa 1 o"kZ ds lkFk ntZ gqvk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mudk dguk gS fd muds firk us tehankj iqu% izca/k djk;k lR; izrhr gksrk gSA jktnso flag vius dks 1@3 dk ekfyd fl) djus esa vlQy jgs gSaA okn fcanq rnuqlkj fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA
okn fcanq&3
l0p0v0 dh fjiksVZ gS fd xkVk ekSdk ij ckx gS i{kksa dks Hkh Lohdkj gS vr% xkVk futkbZ ckx ntZ gksuk pfkg;s okn fcanq rnuqlkj fuf.kZ
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 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 Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
Point Of Law: It is important to appreciate the question of intention as it would have appeared to the paper-owner. The issue is that intention of the adverse user gets communicated to the paper owne....
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.
Rejecting title of on trees and boring well - land in dispute belongs to Gram Samaj therefore even if the orders passed by the lower authorities were not sustainable and quashed, no fruitful purpose ....
Petitioners' failure to timely assert their land rights bars their claim under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.