Irrigation slips alone do not establish ownership or adverse possession; adequate evidence and lawful possession are required to substantiate claims over land.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Manvendraa Nath Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Present case is an outcome of consolidation proceedings and dispute is in respect of Plot Nos. 364, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 and 371 of Khata No. 124, of Village: Dwasi, Pargana: Kulpahar, District-Hamirpur.

3. According to averments made in writ petition in basic year aforesaid plots were recorded in Khata No. 124 in the name of original respondent nos. 2 and 3. However, Pankhiya, brother of the petitioners was in continuous possession over above referred land in dispute, even before Zamindari was abolished, in his own rights as tenure-holder.

4. During consolidation proceedings, said Pankhiya filed an objection that names of original respondent nos. 2 and 3 were illegally recorded and it was alleged that they have no right, title, interest and possession over land in dispute. It was further alleged that petitioners were paying land revenue and irrigation dues throughout. It was further averred in writ petition that one Kenda was illegally recorded as tenure holder and after his death, his widow Gauri Dulhan was also illegally recorded. She died leaving a daughter Puniya (original respondent no. 4). It was further alleged that names of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were illegally recorded.

5. Respondent nos.2 and 3 also filed objections claiming themselves to be legal heirs of Kenda and Gauri Dulhan, alleging that they have acquired rights over land in dispute on basis of adverse possession. However, original respondent no. 4 Smt. Puniya, daughter of Kenda, also filed objection alleging herself to be legal heir of Gauri Dulhan. She has alleged that she, Kenda and Gauri Dulhan, were all disabled persons and as such Pankhiya will not get any right over the land in dispute on basis of his alleged possession.

6. The Consolidation Officer considered rival submission and vide order dated 14.9.1980 allowed objections filed by Pankhiya and it was held that he was in possession over land in dispute before abolition of zamindari. It was further held that original respondent nos. 2 and 3 have no right, title or possession over land in dispute and cultivatory possession of Pakhiya was adverse and he has matured his rights over land in dispute. Relevant part of aforesaid order is reproduced hereinafter:

7. Above referred order was challenged before Settlement Officer of Consolidation by respondent nos. 4, 2 and 3 respectively by way of filing two appeals bearing nos. 270/391 and 269/390, which were dismissed by vide order dated 16.9.1981, and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

(Emphasis Supplied)

8. As referred above, both the authorities have held that Pakhiya has provided irrigation slips of many years which was considered to be a material evidence that he was in possession over land in dispute for many years and was doing agriculture over it and thus perfected his right.

9. Aforesaid orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation were challenged by way of filing two revision petitions bearing nos. 1988 and 1989. The Assistant Director of Consolidation, Hamirpur vide order dated 15.6.1984, allowed the revision petitions filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, but dismissed the revision filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 for want of prosecution. Relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter:

10. The Revisional Authority has denied right to petitioner over land in dispute only on basis of irrigation slips submitted by him. The Revisional Authority has placed reliance on revenue records which was not in favour of petitioners.

11. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that well reasoned orders of two authorities were erroneously disturbed by Revisional Court without reversing specific findings returned by two authorities i.e. Consolidation