Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH
Triveni Singh – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation Gonda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Mohammad Aslam Khan for the petitioner and Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned counsel for the State and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 31.10.1981 and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.09.1982 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been turned down which was initially allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 04.03.1978.
3. The fact in between the parties is not much in dispute. Primarily, the dispute related to the property of Khata No.237, situate in village Barhya Fard Khan, Pargana Sahadullah Nagar, Tehsil Utraula, District Gonda. The property in question was recorded in the name of Mahadev Singh, Jagdev Singh, Zamadar Singh and Taliqudar Singh, who are the respondents in the instant petition.
4. The petitioner claimed rights over the property in question being the nephews of Hirdai Singh. It has been the case of the petitioner that
The court upheld the principle that the succession to property must follow the statutory order defined in the applicable act, and survivorship claims are only relevant in the absence of legal heirs.
The court held that succession rights require substantiated proof of parentage, emphasizing the need for reliable documentation in inheritance claims under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding co-tenancy rights and ancestral property, dismissing the writ petition due to lack of merit.
The petitioner failed to establish his claim of inheritance over the disputed land due to lack of evidence and failure to challenge prior orders vesting the land in the State.
Non-compliance with evidentiary standards in determining legitimacy of adoption leads to reversal of findings regarding inheritance and property rights.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
The court established that property was self-acquired, not ancestral, and rejected claims of adverse possession and family settlement due to lack of evidence.
Court upheld findings of lower authorities stating that the inability to prove family partition and validity of respondents' title under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prevailed, e....
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
