SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(All) 163

D.N.JHA
Dildar Husain – Appellant
Versus
Ali Husain – Respondent


Advocates:
Har Gurcharan, for Petitioner; B. Calla, for Opposite Parties.

ORDER:- The petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the order dated 14-7-1970 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the dispute between the petitioners and opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 was with respect to Khata No. 48. In the basic year opposite parties Ali Husain, Nizarnuddin and Mohd. Nazir were recorded as tenants of the disputed Khata which had 18 plots with an area of 17 Bigha, 5 Biswa and 12 Biswani. The petitioner claimed co-tenancy over the land in dispute with 1/3rd share each. The pedigree set out is as under:-


The dispute was referred to the Consolidation Officer who vide his order dated 30-12-1968 dismissed the objections preferred by the petitioners. They filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who vide his order dated 14-7-1969 partly allowed the appeal inasmuch as he declared the petitioners to be the Sirdars over the plots Nos. 652 and 759 on the basis of adverse possession. This is Annexure-2. The petitioners as well as the opposite parties filed revisions against the order passed by








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top