Dismissed

Nand Kishor and 5 Others v. Deputy Director of Cnsolidation Barabanki and 10 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2025WRIB/19941/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petitions challenges orders dismissing a revision regarding land records. The High Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage, holding that the petitioner failed to establish adverse possession due to lack of cogent evidence meeting statutory requirements for continuous, hostile possession.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed at the admission stage without any substantial relief being granted to the petitioners.

Nand Kishor and 5 Others Vs Deputy Director of… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 19941 of 2016

¶3

Nand Kishor And 5 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deputy Director Of Cnsolidation Barabanki And 10 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Shiv Poojan Maurya, Ash Prakash Yada	Maurya, Ashok Kumar ok Kumar Verma, Jai v, Ram Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Ajay Mukesh Kr. Tewari	Sharma, Krishna Gopal, Tewari, Mukesh Kumar

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.

¶12

The record indicates that by means of order dated 15.09.2025, this matter has been nominated to this Court by the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶13

Under challenge is the order dated 27.06.2016 which was thereafter corrected on 11.07.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.508 preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed, as a consequence, the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal dated 11.03.2015 was affirmed, rejecting the claim of the petition relating to adverse possession.

¶14

The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the dispute in question relates to Plot No.194 of Khata No.75 relating to Gram Majitha, Pargara Pratapganj, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki. Upon the commencement of the consolidation operations, objections under section 9-A(2) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act of 1953 was filed by the Bajrang and Lalla who were the predecessor in interest of the private respondents. Their contention was that the property in question belonged to them and name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely Sant Ram was erroneously recorded under category of 9 on the basis of adverse possession. Initially the objections filed by the predecessor in interest of the private respondents were dismissed for want of prosecution where after upon an application for recall the order was recalled and again after hearing the parties on merit, it was allowed

¶15

WRIB No. 19941 of 2016

¶16

¶17

The Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 09.06.1994 rejected the objections of Bajrang and Lalla and affirmed the entry in favour of the present petitioners. Being aggrieved the private respondents filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and by means of order dated 11.03.2015 the Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and directed the entries to be corrected recording the name of the respondents.

¶18

Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed on 27.06.2016 and the said order was corrected vide order dated 01.07.2016 and in this back drop the petitioners have approached this Court by means of instant petition assailing the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation.

¶19

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the name of the petitioners (previously through his predecessor in interest) was duly recorded in the revenue records under category 9. It was stated that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had been in continuance possession since the time of advent of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and even before the commencement of the consolidation operations the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners remained continuously recorded alongwith the possession and thus they had perfected their rights by adverse possession.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that evidence was led which was considered by the Consolidation Officer, however, being aggrieved against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer an appeal was preferred by the respondents which came to be allowed and the revision preferred by the present petitioners was dismissed.

¶21

It is urged that both the appellate court as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not notice the evidence in the correct prespective and finding returned by them are patently against the material on record and thus the two orders cannot sustain judicial scrutiny hence they are liable to be set aside.

¶22

Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State while opposing the aforesaid submission has pointed out that the core case as built by the petitioners is on the premise of adverse possession. It has been pointed out that in order to succeed while raising a plea of adverse possession, the petitioners were bound to meet the necessary ingredients and having failed to do so, they cannot claim the right. These are pure findings of fact which have been recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In

¶23

WRIB No. 19941 of 2016

¶24

¶25

such circumstances, the contention which is bereft of any support of any evidence even before this Court cannot be re-appreciated and for the aforesaid reason the petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶26

The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

¶27

It will be worthwhile to note that this court in the case of Bhagwati Deen Vs. Sheetladin, 2022 SCC OnLine All 349 had the occasion to consider the law relating to adverse possession specifically in respect of agricultural land, which was followed by this court in Sohan Lal Vs. Distt. D.D.C Hardoi MANU/UP/4198/2022 and later on in Agya Ram Vs. Director of Consolidation, 2025 SCC OnLine 1124 . Certain ingredients were pointed out that unless the same are established by cogent evidence a plea of adverse possession cannot be successfully raised. The relevant portion of the said judgment in Bhagwati Deen (supra) is being reproduced herein after for ready reference:

¶28

" 2 8. Lately, this Court also had the occasion to consider the aforesaid issue of adverse possession in the case of Chit Bahal Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, decided on 29.04.2022 and by relying upon the decision of Babu Ali v. D.D.C. (supra) the plea of adverse possession was rejected. The relevant paras explaining the law and the preparation of entries and what ingredients have to be met are being extracted hereinafter:—

¶29

“11. The para-89-A, 89-B and 102-B of the Land Records Manual (herein-after referred as “the manual’), relevant for the purpose, are extracted below:—

¶30

“89-A. List of changes.-After each Kharif and rabi portal of a village the Lekhpal shall prepare in triplicate a consolidated list of new and modified entries in the Khasra in the following form:

¶31

Form No. P-10

¶32

Khasra	Area	Details	Details	Verification	Remarks
No. of Plot		of entry in	of entry	report by the
		the last	made in	Revenue
		year	the current	Inspector
			year
1	2	3	4	5	6

¶33

(ii) The Lekhpal shall fill in the first four Columns and hand over a copy of the list to the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. He shall also prepare extract from the list and issue to the person or persons concerned recorded in Columns 3 and 4 to their heirs, if the person or

¶34

WRIB No. 19941 of 2016

¶35

¶36

persons concerned have died, obtaining their signature in the copy of the list retained by him. Another copy shall be sent to the Revenue Inspector.

¶37

(iii) The Revenue Inspector shall ensure at the time of his partial of the village the extract have been issued in all the cases and signatures obtained of the recipients.

¶38

89-B. Report of changes.- The copy of the list with the Lekhpal containing the signatures of the recipients of the extracts shall be attached to the Khasra concerned and filed with the Registrar (Revenue Inspector) alongwith it on or before 31st July, of the following year (sub-paragraph (iv) of the paragraph 60).

¶39

102-B. Entry of possession (Column 22) (Remarks column).- (1) The Lekhpal shall while recording the fact of possession in the remarks Column of the Khasra, write on the same day the fact of possession with the name of the person in possession in his diary also, and the date and the serial number of the dairy in the remarks Column of the Khasra against the entry concerned.

¶40

(2) As the list of changes in Form p-10 is prepared after the completion of the patal of village, the serial number of the list of changes shall be noted in red ink below the entry concerned in the remarks column of the Khasra in order to ensure that all such entries have been brought on the list.

¶41

(3) If the Lekhpal fails to comply with any of the provisions contained in paragraph 89-A, the entry in the remarks Column of the Khasra will not be deemed to have been made in the discharge of his official duty.”

¶42

Reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that if any entry is made in PA-10, the same shall be communicated to the person or persons concerned recorded in columns 3and 4 or their heirs and obtain their signatures. Records on being submitted to the Revenue Inspector, he shall ensure at the time of Padtal i.e. verification of the village that it has been issued in all the cases and the signatures obtained by the recipients. Therefore, in case, any entry made on the basis of adverse possession the same was to be communicated to the person concerned and the person claiming is required to prove that it was in accordance with the manual and as to what was nature of possession and when it started in the knowledge of the tenant and the possession was continuous and how long it continued.

¶43

This Court considered this issue in the case of Mohd. Raza v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1997 RD 276 and held that the entries in the revenue papers not prepared by following the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual and PA-10 notice was not served on the main tenant, such entries are of no evidentiary value and would not confer any right.

¶44

This court, in the case of Gurumukh Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Nainital, (1997) 80 RD 276, has also held that the entries will have no evidentiary value if they are not in accordance with the

¶45

WRIB No. 19941 of 2016

¶46

¶47

provisions of Land Records Manual and the burden to prove is on the person who is asserting the possession on the basis of adverse possession. Relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 are extracted below:—

¶48

“6. It is clear from Para A-102C of the Land Records Manual that the entries will have no evidentiary value if they are not made in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual. There is presumption of correctness of the entries provided it is made in accordance with the relevant provision of Land Records Manual and secondly, in case where a person is claiming adverse possession against the recorded tenure-holder and he denies that he had not received any P.A. 10 or he had no knowledge of the entries made in the revenue records, the burden of proof is further upon the person claiming adverse possession to prove that the tenure-holder was duly given notice in prescribed Form P.A. 10. Para A- 81 itself provides that the notice will be given by the Lekhpal and he will obtain the signature of the Chairman, Land Management Committee as well as from the recorded tenureholder. It is also otherwise necessary to be provided by the person claiming adverse possession. The law of adverse possession contemplates that there is not only continuity of possession as against the true owner but also that such person had full knowledge that the person in possession was claiming a title and possession hostile to the true owner. If a person comes in possession of the land of another person, he cannot establish his title by adverse possession unless it is further proved by him that the tenure-holder had knowledge of such adverse possession.

¶49

In Jamuna Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra, this Court repelled the contention that the burden of proof was upon the person who challenges the correctness of the entries. It was observed:

¶50

“Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that there was a presumption of correctness about the entries in the revenue records and the onus lay upon the Respondent to prove that the entries showing the Petitioner's possession had not been in accordance with law. This contention is untenable Firstly, it is not possible for a party to prove a negative fact. Secondly, the question as to whether the notice in Form P.A. 10 was issued and served upon the Petitioner also is a fact which was within his exclusive knowledge.”

¶51

“Petitioner's contention that the burden lay on the Respondents to disprove the authenticity and destroy the probative value of the entry of possession cannot be accepted. In my opinion, where possession is asserted by a party who relies mainly on the entry of adverse possession in his favour and such possession is denied by the recorded tenure-holder, the burden is on the former to establish that the entries in regard to his possession was made in accordance with law.”

¶52

This Court, in the case of Sadhu Saran v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, (2003) 94 RD 535, has held that it is well settled in law that the illegal entry does not confer title. Therefore even if the entry has been made, it does not confer right title or interest if it is not in accordance with law and the prescribed procedure. This Court and the

¶53

WRIB No. 19941 of 2016

¶54

¶55

counsel for the parties also could not get the same in the Lekhpal diary. The provision of PA-24 has come vide notification dated 03.07.1965, therefore it is also of no assistance because entry could not have been made on the basis of PA-24 in Khatauni of 1373 fasli and it is also without number and year.

¶56

This Court, in the case of Putti v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Bahraich, (2007) 2 All LJ 43, has held that the court should be slow to declare the right on the basis adverse possession otherwise it may become a weapon in the hands of mighty persons to acquire the property of the weaker sections of society. It has further held that there shall not be presumption of continuous possession to declare right and title on the basis of adverse possession unless year to year entries made in accordance with law in the Khasra or Khatauni and proved by cogent and trustworthy evidence, the burden to prove which is on the person who claims Sirdari or Bhumidhari rights on the basis of adverse possession. Relevant paragraph-41 is extracted below:—

¶57

“41. Right to claim title on the basis of adverse possession is a legacy of British law. Courts should be slow to declare right on the basis of adverse possession. In case liberal approach is adopted to extend right and title on the basis of adverse possession then it may become a weapon in the hands of mighty persons to acquire the property of the weaker sections of the society. Accordingly, it shall always be incumbent upon the Courts to do close scrutiny of the evidence and material on record within the four corners of law as settled by Apex Court, discussed herein above. Even little reasonable doubt on the evidence relied upon by a party to claim right and title on the basis of adverse possession may be sufficient to reject such claim under a particular fact and circumstance. There shall not be presumption on continuous possession to declare right and title on the basis of adverse possession unless year to year entries made in accordance to law in the Khasra or Khatauni are proved by cogent and trust worthy evidence. burden of proof of such entries shall lie, as discussed herein above, on the person who claims Sirdari or bhumidhari right on the basis of adverse possession. In the absence of any such proof, presumption shall be in favour of recorded tenure-holder whose name has been recorded in column-1 of the Khatauni.”

¶58

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, 2008 (26) LCD 15, has held that in case of adverse possession, communication to the owner and his hostility towards the possession is must. The relevant paragraphs 19 to 23 are extracted below:—

¶59

“19. Thus, there must be intention to dispossess. And it needs to be open and hostile enough to bring the same to the knowledge and plaintiff has an opportunity to object. After all adverse possession right is not a substantive right but a result of the waiving (willful) or omission (negligent or otherwise) of right to defend or care for the integrity of property on the part of the paper owner of the land. Adverse possession statutes, like other statutes of limitation, rest on a public policy that do not promote litigation and aims at the repose of conditions that the parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long enough to indicate their

¶60

WRIB No. 19941 of 2016

¶61

¶62

acquiescence.

¶63

While dealing with the aspect of intention in the Adverse possession law, it is important to understand its nuances from varied angles.

¶64

Intention implies knowledge on the part of adverse possessor. The case of Saroop Singh v. Banto, (2005) 8 SCC 330 in that context held:

¶65

“29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak, (2004) 3 SCC 376).

¶66

Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Mohd Mohd. Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, SCC para 21)”

¶67

A peaceful, open and continuous possession as engraved in the maxim nec vi, nec clam, nec precario has been noticed by this Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779 in the following terms:

¶68

“Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show : (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession”

¶69

It is important to appreciate the question of intention as it would have appeared to the paper-owner. The issue is that intention of the adverse user gets communicated to the paper owner of the property. This is where the law gives importance to hostility and openness as pertinent qualities of manner of possession. It follows that the possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice and opportunity to the paper owner.”

¶70

Applying the aforesaid parameters and from the perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed by the petitioners that the land in question belonged to Bajranj and Lalla. It was specifically put to the counsel for the petitioners to indicate that what evidence was led before the courts below to indicate the continuous possession of the petitioners

¶71

WRIB No. 19941 of 2016

¶72

¶73

as recorded in category 9. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to state that certain receipts relating to payment of irrigation charges were filed it which clearly indicated the possession of the petitioners.

¶74

Apparently, from the aforesaid submissions all what can be deciphered is the fact that the petitioners have referred to certain receipts which otherwise do not hold much water for the purposes of establishing the plea of adverse possession. The said receipts at best can be taken to corroborative evidence, however, without establishing the core requirements as noticed in law, the corroborative evidence in itself cannot come to the aid of the petitioners. In the entire petition nor before the Consolidation Authorities, it was ever pleaded as to when the petitioners came in the possession of the land in question.It has also not been pleaded nor proved as to whether the entries have been recorded in accordance with law as already noticed in the judgment of Bhagwati Deen (supra) .

¶75

In absence of any material to substantiate the basic requirements for the plea of adverse possession the Court finds that it has rightly been rejected both by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation and this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶76

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶77

December 3, 2025

¶78

ank

¶79

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nand Kishor and 5 Others v. Deputy Director of Cnsolidation Barabanki and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishor and 5 Others v. Deputy Director of Cnsolidation Barabanki and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Faez Hassan and 28 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Kumar Anand Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ceiling and 12 Ors.

The State of U.P. Thru Collector Balrampur Vs the Additional Commissioner Admin Devi Patan and 4 Ors.

M/S Siddhi Associates Thr.Proprietor Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax Registration Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S S.K.Power Solutions Thru. Partner Mr.Shoeb Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Reg. Lko and 2 Others

Rajesh Yadav and 4 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others