Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3049 (ALL)

Ram Murat v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2013-12-13

S.U.KHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. 1. After the death of learned counsel, who was representing the contesting respondents, card notice was issued to them to engage another counsel. They did not engage any other counsel. 2. Heard Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for petitioners. 3. A title dispute in respect of agricultural land in dispute was raised before the consolidation authorities. The matter was registered as Case No. 4249 under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, Ram Murat and others v. Dargahi Lal and others, on the file of Consolidation Officer (III), Sadar Sultanpur. The C.O. decided the matter on 5.1.1974 directing that the names of Dargahi Lal and others, original opposite parties No. 2 to 6 be expunged from the revenue records over plots No. 849 and 893 and the names of petitioners should be entered with equal share as sirdar under Clause-II (Varg-2). Against the said order, contesting respondents filed Appeal No. 164, which was dismissed on 17.6.1974. Against the said order, contesting respondents filed Revision No. 4591/202. D.D.C Sultanpur allowed the revision on 30.1.1980 holding that petitioners (who were opposite parties in the revision) completely failed to prove their possession over the land in dispute. Orders passed by C.O. and S.O.C. were set aside and basic year entry when consolidation started was directed to continue. Order of the revisional court has been challenged through this writ petition. 4. Khasra or khatauni of 1356 fasli was not filed. In the revenue record of 1359 fasli, in the khasra and khatauni contesting opposite parties were entered as tenure holder and in the last column of khasra petitioners or their predecessors were entered as occupants in lieu of interest. The revisional court held that this proved that the possession of petitioners' father was as licencee. The petitioners had contended that their possession was adverse which afterwards matured into title as no suit for eviction was filed. It is also mentioned in the order passed by D.D.C. that in 1367 fasli khasra, petitioners were not recorded in any capacity. In respect of subsequent entry, of 1368 fasli in the khasra recording the names of petitioners as occupant the revisional court held that pa-ka-10 was not issued in respect of the said entry (as its number/serial was not mentioned) hence it was not in accordance with Land Record Manual. In respect of subsequent entry, of 1368 fasli in the khasra recording the names of petitioners as occupant the revisional court held that pa-ka-10 was not issued in respect of the said entry (as its number/serial was not mentioned) hence it was not in accordance with Land Record Manual. In subsequent khasra of 1369 fasli also, the name of Ram Murat was entered in Column-5 of the khasra. The revisional court held that petitioners could not prove that how their names were entered in the khasra. 5. It is further mentioned in the judgment of D.D.C. that in the khasras from 1369/70 fasli onward, the names of petitioners were entered in column-5 of the khasra and in the last column (specific details), the names of opposite parties were mentioned. It was reverse position. In khasra of 1368 fasli, petitioners were shown in the last column as occupant and opposite parties as main tenure holder and in the subsequent khasras, petitioners were shown as main tenure holder and opposite parties in the last column as occupant. 6. From the above discussion, it is quite clear that both the parties are in possession and recorded as such since 1359 fasli. Possession in lieu of interest is not provided for under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. There is no pleading that any formal mortgage deed was executed. Entries of both the persons in different columns which changing positions, warrants drawing of only one legal inference and that is that both were in possession. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Both the parties are declared to be joint bhoomidhars of the land in dispute. They may file suit for partition under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act or if consolidation is going on, partition may be got done by filing objection/application in that regard before C.O.