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.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Present writ petition, pending before this Court for last four decades, is arising out of objections filed in consolidation proceedings u/s 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short “U.P.C.H. Act”).

2. Contesting respondents have filed objections in regard to plot nos. 1100, 4643, 1072, 3275, 883 in village Haraiya, District Azamgarh. Undisputedly, said plots were recorded in basic year in the name of Radhey Kishun Upadhyay and Shridhar Upadhyay (predecessors of present petitioner).

3. Basis of objections filed by contesting respondent-4 were that he was recorded over land in suit for substantial long time and therefore by virtue of law, he become adhivasi and sirdar being recorded in 1956-F and 1959-F, whereas petitioner has opposed said objections on substantial grounds that he is successor of Radhey Kishun Upadhyay and Shridhar Upadhyay, the original tenure holder and name of contesting respondents was recorded only as a ‘sikmi tenant’ with a note Batai Nisfi as well as that said entries were later on discontinued also and accordingly, entries were disputed being not genuine.

4. The Consolidation Officer vide a judgment dated 23.01.1971 rejected the objections filed by contesting respondent-4 and basis year entries which were in favour of Radhey Kishun Upadhyay and Shridhar Upadhyay were directed to be continued. For reference, relevant part of judgment of Consolidation Officer is quoted below :-

“In the Khata no. 188 and 73 Kharbhan has stated that he has been in possession of the five disputed plots for before the abolition of zamindari and that he filed a suit u/s 229B ZA Act which was decreed in his favour of copy of the judgment of the learned J.O. is on file, the case was decided after the village was brought under consolidation scheme as the judgment is dated 20.1.69 whereas notification u/s 41 was made in Aug.68. This judgment and the decree therefore is of no. This case is to be decided on merits. Plot no. 3275/-360 is recorded in the name of Kharbhan s/o Ram Gulam as Shikmi tenant with a note ‘ Batai Nisfi’ plot no. 3643/- 288 is recorded in his name in class 19 but the disputed plot is 4643/-288. There is a mistake. An uncertified copy of Khasra 1364F is on file. These are remarks column entry in favour of Kharbhan but the plots are not clear, In the Consolidated Khasra 1353 to 1364 F main column entry continued in favour of Radha Krishna etc. In 1356F over plot no. 1072/ 316 Kabiz Kharbhan son of Ramgulam has been noted. This entry in 1357 F, 1358F, 1361F, 1362F, 1363F, and 1364F.

In 1365 F plot no. 1072/316 is in favour Kharbhan. On plot no. 1100/-174 possession of Kharbhan is noted in 1357 F, 1359F, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364F. There is no such entry in 1365F against this plot on plot no. 3275, possession stands from 1358 F as noted in the consolidated khasra, there is no such enry in 1363F. There is ag. Remarks col. Entry against this plot in 1364 F and 65 F.I. have perused the statement of ARK who appeared before me with the khasra of 1365F. He stated that entry of remarks column in 1365F. Khasra is made but it has been struck off (plot no. 1072/-316 similarly in case of plot no. 3275/360 Remark Col. Entry has been made in red ink but it has been struck of, extract of khasra 1365F filed by the defdt. Radha Krishna shows that remarks col. Entry made there in was struck off. However, there are no papers on file to show the possession of Kharbhan ov