Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2739 (ALL)

Siroman Singh v. D. D. C.

2014-09-05

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Shri T.K. Dubey, holding brief of Shri D.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The dispute pertains to plot No. 521/2, area 1.50 acres. In the basic year record the father of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute while the contesting respondents were recorded in column No. 9 of the Khasra. 3. The objection, therefore, was preferred by the father of the petitioner for expunging the entry in favour of the respondents. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23.2.1976 dismissed the objection while the objection filed by the contesting respondent was allowed and they were held as Sirdar of land in dispute. This order has been affirmed by the appellate as also the revisional Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in 1949, the parties had entered into a compromise in a suit under section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act whereby the petitioner's father was held entitled to half share in plot No. 521 having a total area of 3 acres. It is further the case of the petitioner that his father thereafter executed a gift deed in his favour in 1968 and the petitioner was thereafter recorded over the land in dispute in the revenue record on the basis of such gift deed. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the compromise decree in the suit under section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was binding upon the parties and in holding to the contrary the Consolidation Officer has committed manifest error. 5. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 6. In so far as the alleged compromise decree is concerned the Courts below have recorded that this compromise decree was detrimental to the interest of the respondents who were minor at that time and no permission was obtained from the authority concerned, namely, the District Judge prior to such compromise being recorded. It has also been recorded that the compromise or compromise decree were not filed on record and there existed no entries evidencing that the compromise had been acted upon. It has also been recorded that the compromise or compromise decree were not filed on record and there existed no entries evidencing that the compromise had been acted upon. Therefore, it has rightly been held the compromise decree was not binding upon the respondents. 7. The second submission raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has upheld the claim of the contesting respondents which was a claim of adverse possession without any evidence of the same being on record. The Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the contesting respondents made full efforts to summon the revenue records to establish that the entries into the revenue records were legal and in consonance with the provisions of paras 80-A to 82-A of the U.P. Land Records Manual and also about proof of service of notice through P.A. 10 but it was reported that all such revenue records of the period prior to 1368-F had been weeded out. The Courts below, therefore, relying upon the khasra entries which showed the contesting respondents to have been possession over the land in dispute for the statutory period and also relying upon the categorical admission made by the father of the petitioner that the contesting respondent was in possession over the entire 3 acres of the plot in question, upheld the claim of the contesting respondents, based on a plea of the adverse possession. 8. I find no illegality in this approach and submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard lacks merit. 9. Even the claim of the petitioner regarding the alleged gift deed in his favour is doubtful as the Court below has recorded that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records on the basis of a sale-deed in his favour. The learned Counsel has not been able to explain this discrepancy. Accordingly, I find no illegality in the impugned orders and the writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and, is dismissed.