Dismissed

Sheo Raj Singh v. D.D.C. and Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018WRIB/12910/1985

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders rejecting a claim for transferable rights via adverse possession under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Relying on precedent, the Court held that oral evidence without corroborative documentary records was insufficient to prove adverse possession, especially against Gaon Sabha property.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merits; interim order vacated.

Sheo Raj Singh Vs D.D.C. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 12910 of 1985

¶3

Petitioner :- Sheo Raj Singh Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar,K.M.Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

The case has been called out in the revised list. Shri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are present. None appeared for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to oppose the present writ petition.

¶6

Respondent No. 6 i.e. Ram Autar was recorded tenure holder of Plot Nos. 2297, 2298 and 2299. During the consolidation proceedings held in the village under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), the petitioner filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 praying that he may be recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable right of the said plots on the basis of adverse possession. During the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, witnesses which included the Gram Pradhan of the Village were produced by the petitioner to prove his possession over the said plots. The aforesaid witnesses admitted the possession of the petitioner over plot Nos. 2297, 2298 and 2299. It transpired during the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer that respondent No. 6, i.e. the original tenure holder had not been residing in the village since long and had probably died. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 3.2.1982 rejected the objections filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to produce any documentary evidence including the Khasra, to prove his possession over the disputed plots, and therefore, the statement of the oral witnesses cannot be relied upon. Against the order dated 3.2.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an Appeal

¶7

under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 registering Appeal No. 86, which was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') vide his order dated 18.3.1983. Against the order dated 18.3.1983 passed by the S.O.C., the petitioner filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, which was registered as Revision No. 256 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'). The D.D.C. vide his order dated 16.5.1985 dismissed the aforesaid Revision filed by the petitioner. In their orders dated 18.3.1983 and 16.5.1985 the D.D.C. and S.O.C. while agreeing with the reasons given by the Consolidation Officer for dismissing the objections of the petitioner, have also given additional reasons to the effect that the petitioner could not have claimed adverse possession against a dead person and the Gram Pradhan of the village could not have admitted the possession of the petitioner over the disputed plots as the admission was adverse to the interest of Gaon Sabha. The orders dated 3.2.1982, 18.3.1983 and 16.5.1985 have been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶8

I have considered the matter.

¶9

In view of the judgement of this Court delivered in Ramjeet Upadhyaya and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others 2012 (116) RD 674 , there is no illegality or perversity in the findings of the Consolidation Authorities as recorded in their orders dated 3.2.1982, 18.3.1983 and 16.5.1985, inasmuch as, in absence of any documentary evidence, oral evidence produced by the petitioner could not have been considered to accept his case of adverse possession. Paragraph No. 41 of the aforesaid judgement which states the importance of documentary evidence, especially the revenue records, to prove adverse possession is reproduced below :-

¶10

"41. Keeping in view the judicial pronouncements from time to time, let us examine the impugned orders and the order of the

¶11

Consolidation Officer who accepted the claim of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer proceeded to accept the claim of the adverse possession on the oral evidence led by the petitioners, without there being any corroborative material. He was obsessed of the view that the possession of the petitioners has not been opposed by the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha who failed to turn up in spite of notice and the standing counsel for Gaon Sabha did not oppose. Is it sufficient to hold the possession, if any, of a person as adverse in respect of public property in particular. Answer is obviously 'no' . With respect to agricultural lands two kinds of records are maintained — One is record of right called Khatauni and the another one is record of possession called Khasra. The Land Record Manual provides a detailed procedure for carrying out spot inspection three times in a year to record the possession of a person whether he is a tenure holder or a trespasser. A Khasra is the best piece of evidence to show the possession of a person whether authorized one or unauthorized one as the case may be. Obviously, in absence of Khasra entries, it is always dangerous and inappropriate to accept the claim of adverse possession on the basis of oral evidence not supported by any corroborative material . Non turning up of Pradhan of the village and no objection by the counsel for the Gaon Sabha is itself indicative of the fact that the things were managed over.

¶12

...Law with regard to the adverse possession is well settled and it is not necessary to burden this judgment. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly rejected the claim of the adverse possession and he rightly refused to accept the petitioner's claim solely on the basis of the oral evidence. It is a question of believing and disbelieving of oral evidence. On the facts of the present case, if the consolidation courts found that the oral evidence is not sufficient to prove the adverse possession, no illegality has been committed by them . The observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order that no right by way of adverse possession on the basis of the oral evidence can be granted in respect of Gaon Sabha property is in consonance with the Supreme Court judgements referred to above and I find no fault therein."

¶13

(Emphasis added)

¶14

In view of the aforesaid observations the orders passed dismissing the objections of the petitioner and directing that disputed plots be recorded in the Khata of Gaon Sabha are according to law and require no interference.

¶15

The writ petition lacks merits, and is, accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.4.2018 Anurag/-

Sheo Raj Singh v. D.D.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Raj Singh v. D.D.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuwarpal Singh and Others Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Mithai and Others Vs D.D.C. Varanasi and Others

Keshav Vs D.D.C. Sonbhadra and Others

Hubai Vs D.D.C.

Chedi Lal Vs D.D.C. and Others

Smt. Krishna Devi Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others