Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1275 (ALL)

Balchan v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation Mau

2015-05-18

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Kamleshwar Singh, for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 07.04.1979, Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.07.1981 and 05.08.2014, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to khata 196 [consisting plots 733/1 (area 0.543 hectare) and 734 (area 0.085 hectare)] of village Ahirupur, tahsil Ghosi, district Azamgarh. In basic consolidation year, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Murari (father of respondent-3) and names of Vindhyanchal and others (now represented by the petitioners) were recorded in column-9 of the khatauni. The petitioners filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, on 29.09.1976 for recording their names over the land in dispute as sirdar. It has been stated by the petitioners that land in dispute was in possession of their ancestors since before date of vesting and they had become its sirdar. 4. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer, who by his order dated 24.12.1977 dismissed the objected in respect of plot 734 and directed to delete entry of the names of the petitioners from plot 734 and allowed in respect of plot 733 and held them as sirdar of plot 733 (area 0.543 hectare). The petitioners did not file any appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer, in respect of plot 734. Murari and others filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 351) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 07.04.1979 found that so far as entry in khatauni 1359 F is concerned, Narain and Jagatu were recorded in column-20 of the khatauni as "occupiers of land without consent of the person recorded in column 5 of khasra" and in khatauni 1362 F, Narain and Jagatu were recorded as sirdar. Thus on the basis of being "recorded occupant", in 1359 F, sirdari right was claimed. For grant of sirdari right to a "recorded occupant", compensation under ZA Form-101, 110, 111 and 112 ought to have been prepared. The petitioners could not adduce any evidence to show that compensation role was prepared at that time. As such entry of 1359 F and 1362 F was not liable to be believed. For grant of sirdari right to a "recorded occupant", compensation under ZA Form-101, 110, 111 and 112 ought to have been prepared. The petitioners could not adduce any evidence to show that compensation role was prepared at that time. As such entry of 1359 F and 1362 F was not liable to be believed. So far as column-9 entry in khatauni is concerned, for the first time entry in column-9 was made in khatauni 1367 F, which contains an amaldaramad of the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 13.11.1959, recording the names of the petitioners in column-9. There is no evidence to prove that before making entry of column-9, procedure as given under Paragraph-A-81 of U.P. Land Records Manual was followed as such no reliance can be placed on it. On these findings appeal of Murari was allowed and entry of column-9 of the names of the petitioner on plot 733/1 (area 0.543 hectare) was directed to be deleted. 5. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 515) against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 20.07.1981, held that the petitioners had not challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.1977, so far as it was against them in respect of plot 734 as such it has become final against them. So far as column-9 entry in khatauni is concerned, for the first time entry in column-9 was made in khatauni 1367 F, which contains an amaldaramad of the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 13.11.1959, recording the names of the petitioners in column-9. There is no evidence to prove that before making entry in column-9, procedure as given under Paragraphs-A-80 and A-81 of U.P. Land Records Manual were followed. In as much as it was not proved that PA-10 was issued/served on the recorded tenure holder and Chairman of Land Management Committee as such this entry cannot be relied upon. Total area of plot 733 was 1.103 hectare in 1359 F. In khata 199 an area of 0.543 hectare of plot 733 was recorded in the name of Mahesh. Narain and Jagatu were recorded in possession of it. In 1363 F-1365 F, their names were recorded as sirdar. Thereafter, their names came to be recorded in column-9 of the khatauni 1368 F, without following procedure of Paragraphs-A-80 and A-81 of U.P. Land Records Manual. As such on reliance can be placed on it. Narain and Jagatu were recorded in possession of it. In 1363 F-1365 F, their names were recorded as sirdar. Thereafter, their names came to be recorded in column-9 of the khatauni 1368 F, without following procedure of Paragraphs-A-80 and A-81 of U.P. Land Records Manual. As such on reliance can be placed on it. On these the revision was dismissed. 6. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the order dated 20.07.1981, which was rejected by order dated 09.11.1983. Second recall application was rejected by order dated 09.01.1988. Third recall application was rejected on 18.01.1988. Fourth recall application was rejected on 05.08.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that predecessors of the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute since before date of vesting. Their names were recorded in column-20 of the khatauni 1359 F, being in possession of it. Being "recorded occupant", in 1359 F, their names were recorded as sirdar in 1362 F khatauni and 1363 F to 1365 F khatauni. However, Lekhpal recorded the name of the petitioners in column-9 of the khatauni since 1366 F and this entry continued up to basic consolidation year. Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the petitioners. Respondents-1 and 2 have illegally ignored the documents of the petitioners. Orders of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. The petitioners claim their right in two ways. First claim was they were "recorded occupants" of the land in dispute in 1359 F as such they had become sirdar of it under Section 20 (b) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. A Special Bench of 5 Hon'ble Judges in Basdeo Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and others, 1974 RD 188 (SB) and Supreme Court in Bechan Vs. Kankar, 1972 RD 219 (SC) and Ram Harakh Vs. Hamid Ahmad Khan, (1988) 7 SCC 484, held that in order to get right under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on basis of entry of "recorded occupant" in 1356 F and 1359 F, entry must have been made according to the provisions of Land Records Manual and genuine. 9. Hamid Ahmad Khan, (1988) 7 SCC 484, held that in order to get right under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on basis of entry of "recorded occupant" in 1356 F and 1359 F, entry must have been made according to the provisions of Land Records Manual and genuine. 9. Paragraph-84 (c) of Land Records Manual prescribes procedure for making entry of possession of a person other than recorded tenure holder, in red ink in column 6 of khasra as "Ghair Qabiz Dawedar Qabza Fulan". The petitioners filed khatauni 1359 F in which their names were recorded in column-20 of the khatauni, as "occupiers of land without consent of the person recorded in column 5 of khasra" and in khatauni 1362 F, Narain and Jagatu were recorded as sirdar. Respondents-1 and 2 found that for grant of sirdari right to a "recorded occupant", compensation under ZA Form-101, 110, 111 and 112 ought to have been prepared. The petitioners could not adduce any evidence to show that compensation role was prepared at that time. Khasra 1359 F or of any previous year was not been filed to prove possession of Narain and Jagatu. As such entry of 1359 F and 1362 F were held to be not a genuine entry. If the name of the petitioners had already become sirdar in 1362 F, 1363 F-1365 F, then there was no occasion for recording their names in column-9 of khatauni in 1367 F, as no person can claim adverse possession over his own land. Thus, the findings that entry of the names of the petitioners in khatauni 1359 F, 1362 F were not genuine entries, do not suffer from any illegality. 10. Second claim was that they were in adverse possession over the land in dispute for more than statutory period as such had become sirdar under Section 210 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. First document, khatauni 1367 F was filed to prove adverse possession, after date of vesting, which contains an amaldaramad of the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 13.11.1959, recording the names of the petitioners in column-9. Paragraph-A-81-A of U.P. Land Records Manual requires to issue/serve notice in PA-10 to land holder and Chairman of Land Management Committee. There is no evidence to prove that before making entry in column-9, procedure as given under Paragraph-A-81-A of U.P. Land Records Manual was followed. Paragraph-A-81-A of U.P. Land Records Manual requires to issue/serve notice in PA-10 to land holder and Chairman of Land Management Committee. There is no evidence to prove that before making entry in column-9, procedure as given under Paragraph-A-81-A of U.P. Land Records Manual was followed. This Court in Jamuna Prasad Vs. DDC and others, 1981 RD 112 and Gurumukh Singh Vs. DDC and others, 1997 RD 276 and in several judgments have held that if PA-10 was not issued to land holder and Chairman of Land Management Committee, before recording possession of third person, then such entry has no evidentiary value. Thus respondents-1 and 2 have not committed any illegality in ignoring these documents. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.