This writ petition challenging orders of the Settlement and Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding land title based on adverse possession claims and unauthorized revenue entries.
The writ petition is dismissed with the interim order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4757 of 1983
Petitioner :- Nanhey And Another Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tej Ram,Ashfaq Husain,B. Ram,H.L. Pandey,P.N. Saxena,P.N.Khare,Siddhartha Varma,T.H. Farooqui,Tahir Hussain
Counsel for Respondent :- V.K. Tewari,G.R.S. Pal,Mps Gaur,S.B. Jauhari,S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri Tahir Hussain, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 & 2. No one appears for respondent nos. 3 & 4.
The petitioners were recorded as Class 9 holder of Plot Nos.184/1/3111 and 243/72 in the revenue records relating to the same. On the basis of the aforesaid entries in the revenue records, the petitioners filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P Consolidations of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) stating that they were in possession of the disputed plots since the last 40 years and therefore, are entitled to be recorded as Bhumidars of the same. The respondent nos. 3 & 4 also filed their objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 stating that the petitioners were wrongly recorded in possession in the revenue records relating to the disputed plots and therefore the entries do not confer any right on the petitioners. On the aforesaid objections, Case No.1713 of 1982-1983 was registered in the Court of Consolidation Officer (First) District Budaun under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 and the Consolidation Officer vide his judgement and order dated 20.2.1982 allowed the objections of the petitioners and directed that the petitioners be recorded as Bhumidars of the disputed plots.
Against the order dated 20.2.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the respondent nos. 3 & 4 filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 which was registered as Appeal No. 386 in the Court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation Camp, Budaun, District Bareilly. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his judgement and order dated 31.7.1982 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the order dated 20.2.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 which was registered as Revision No.98 in the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, Camp Budaun i.e. respondent no. 1 and was dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide his judgement and orders dated 25.1.1983. The orders dated 31.7.1982 and 25.1.1983 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
It is evident that the petitioners were recorded as class-9 holders of the disputed plots in the revenue records relating to the same. Apparently, the petitioners claimed Bhumidari rights by adverse possession. It was on the basis of the entries in the revenue records since 1375 Fasli that the Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of the petitioners holding that the petitioners had acquired Bhumidari rights over the disputed plots by 1387 Fasli. However, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after an elaborate consideration of oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties, vide his judgement and order dated 31.7.1982, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer after recording a finding that the petitioners had not been able to prove their adverse possession over the disputed plots. The findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation are findings of facts based on evidence on record and the counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any perversity in the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer.
Apart from the aforesaid findings, the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e the respondent no.1 through his order dated 25.1.1983 rejected the revision filed by the petitioners on the ground that the entries in the revenue records showing the possession of the petitioners were not made in accordance with Paragraphs 81 & 82 of the U.P Land Records Manual and no Form Pa-Ka 10 had ever been issued in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that as the entries in the revenue records showing the possession of the petitioners were unauthorized and not made in accordance with law, therefore, the petitioners do not get any right due to the said entries. Consequently, the respondent no.1 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. There is no illegality in the reasons given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his impugned order dated 25.1.1983. The order dated 25.1.1983 is in conformity with the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court delivered in Basdeo and others vs. Board of Revenue and ors. AIR 1974 Allahabad 337.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 24.1.2019 IB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revenue entries without Form Pa-Ka 10 confer Bhumidari rights against the finding that adverse possession was not proved.
Whether the Settlement Officer’s finding that adverse possession was not established was perverse or arbitrary.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Basdeo and others vs. Board of Revenue and ors.Relied on¶12
AIR 1974 Allahabad 337 · Who else cites this
Nanhey And Another
D.D.C. And Others
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
