Dismissed

Ram Pratap Singh and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation District Chitrakoot and 8 Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024WRIB/1796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claiming title by adverse possession challenged consolidation orders remanding their case for afresh examination of the genuineness of a Class 9 revenue entry and issuance of Form P.A.-10. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the orders and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Pratap Singh and Another vs Deputy Director of… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123640

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1796 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Singh And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation District Chitrakoot And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardan Singh,Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as learned counsel for private respondents no.3 to 9.

¶7

The petitioners have shown their grievance against the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') whereby parties were relegated before the Consolidation Officer to get the objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act'), filed on behalf of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, decided afresh on the point of genuineness of Class 9 entry and issuance of Form P.A.-10. Order passed by the S.O.C. was affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.').

¶8

Facts culled out from the record are that the present petitioners are claiming their right and title over the property in question on the basis of adverse possession with a plea that their name is recorded in the land revenue record under Class 9 entry since beginning and suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (in brevity ‘U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act’) filed on their behalf on the basis of adverse possession has been decreed. On the advent of consolidation operation, opposite parties

¶9

have moved a restoration application against the decree dated 05.02.1993. The Sub-Divisional Officer has allowed the restoration application vide its order dated 07.11.2003 and quashed the decree passed in the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act . Predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents no.3 to 9 has filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act claiming his right and title over the property in question being an original tenure holder with transferable right. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 26.09.2016, has dismissed the said objection and acknowledged the right, title and interest of the petitioners on the basis of adverse possession. The S.O.C., on appeal being filed on behalf of the respondents, has allowed the appeal, vide order dated 12.05.2022, and relegated the parties before the Consolidation Officer to get the case under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act decided afresh. The D.D.C., on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioners, has affirmed the order passed by the S.O.C.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that while relegating the parties before the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 12.09.2022, the S.O.C. has given categorical finding that the Consolidation Officer has not examined the genuineness of Class 9 entry in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners and issuance of Form P.A.-10. Perusal of the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer evince that issue no.4 qua possession of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has been decided only on the basis of statement of Maiku (plaintiff), however, no discussion has been made qua genuineness of Class 9 entry and issuance of Form P.A.-10 which is mandatory provision for deciding the right, title and interest of

¶11

the present petitioners who have allegedly perfected their right on the basis of adverse possession. It is no more res integra that under the relevant law, issuance of Form P.A.-10 to the original owner of the property in question informing him quo adverse possessor is a mandatory provision, therefore, while deciding the right, title and interest over the property in question, genuineness of Class 9 entry, duration of possession over there and issuance of Form P.A.-10 has to be examined by the court concerned. At this juncture, it would not be befitting to discuss the law relating to adverse possession as enunciated under the Land Record Manual, as the matter is still sub judice before the Consolidation Officer. The S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have not committed any error in relegating the parties before the Consolidation Officer to get the matter decided afresh, particularly, on the point of Class 9 entry and issuance of Form P.A.-10.

¶12

In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere with the order impugned passed by the S.O.C. which has been affirmed by the D.D.C. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the orders under challenge so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how the petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owning to orders impugned. 6. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid on merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 VR

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA RATAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Pratap Singh and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation District Chitrakoot and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Pratap Singh and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation District Chitrakoot and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Maurya and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Narayan and Another vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Committee of Management Junior High School Sadipur and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

Satish Kumar Singh and Another vs Mr Rakesh Kumar Singh Vice Chairman and Another

Israr vs State of Up and 13 Others

Raj Kumar Sharma vs State of Up and 24 Others