Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI
Mohd Sayeed – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation Faizabad – Respondent
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 hav
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.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the mandatory procedures for recording possession in land records and the requirements for adverse possession.
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.
The main legal point established is that revisions under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, and the authority m....
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....
Point of Law : Civil Law - Possession - A party laying his claim on basis of adverse possession in some property has to prove as to date, time and manner in which possession is converted into open, h....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to examine and decide cases on merits without unnecessary remand, emphasizing the need for expedient resolution of disputes.
Parties must show vested interest to contest consolidation proceedings; the Revisional Authority has the power to rectify procedural lapses under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,....
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
