The revisional authority must not assume fact-finding roles beyond their jurisdiction; adequate evidence and adherence to legal standards are necessary for adverse possession claims.

JUDGMENT :

Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

1. Case called out in the revised list. Even in the revised list, no one appeared on behalf of the private opposite parties.

2. Heard Sri Shaswat Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri Mohd. Kaseem, learned counsel for the State-opposite parties.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 07.02.1981, passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, in Revision No. 1695/842 arising out of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Consolidation Act’). The petitioners seek the quashment of the impugned order dated 07.02.1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as DDC) and restoration of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as CO) and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as ASOC) dated 28.03.1979 & 30.09.1980, respectively which were in their favour.

4. None of the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit, however, Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties No. 2, 3 and 4/1 is available on record.

5. The facts in nutshell as culled out from the material available on record is that the dispute pertains to Plot No. 2113, situates at Village Bhiyaso, Pargana Surhurpur, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad that was recorded in the name of one Bangur son of Sheoraj in the basic year record. The private respondents, claiming succession from Bangur, asserted title and possession over the land.

6. The petitioners, claiming to be the heirs and successors of Mehmood Ali and Murtaza Hussain, who were their predecessors- in-interest, filed an objection under Section 9 -A of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. They contended that their predecessors and subsequently they themselves, had been in continuous possession of the land in question. They further contended that the aforesaid Bangur has never been in possession of the said land and the entry of his name in the revenue records was erroneous and unjustified. In support of their claim, they produced Khatauni extracts pertaining to the year 1360 Fasli and 1366-1368 Fasli, consistently showing the name of their predecessor-in-interest Murtaza Hussain.

7. The opposite parties, who are the heirs of Bangur, resisted the claim of the petitioners. In support of their case, they adduced irrigation slips and a Khatauni extract pertaining to the year 1368 Fasli, showing the name of Bangur recorded in Class-9 (oxZ 9). Their primary contention was that Bangur had matured his sirdari rights on the basis of ‘adverse possession’.

8. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidences adduced by the parties found that the opposite parties or their predecessor were not in possession of the disputed land and vide order dated March 28, 1979 allowed the aforesaid objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Consolidation Act and directed that the name of the petitioners be recorded in respect of the plots in question.

9. While deciding Issues No. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 the Consolidation Officer held that the entry in the remark’s column of the Khasra is of no significance and