Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1228 (ALL)

Reoti v. D. D. C.

2018-05-16

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 167841 of 2012 1. Cause shown for the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 23.10.2009, when the case was called out for hearing, has been explained satisfactorily in the affidavit filed in support of the application. 2. Application is allowed. 3. Order dated 23.10.2009 passed by this Court dismissing the above mentioned writ petition in default is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.167775 of 2012 & Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.167776 of 2012 4. Cause shown for delay in filing the substitution application has been satisfactorily explained in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application. 5. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned and delay condonation application is allowed. 6. Substitution Application is also allowed. 7. Office is directed to record the word "deceased" before the name of petitioner nos.1 & 2 as well as the fact that their heirs and legal representatives are already on record as petitioner Nos.4, 6, 7 & 9. 8. Office is directed to also carry out appropriate substitution in relation to petitioner Nos.3 & 8 as stated in the prayer clause of the application within a week. Civil Misc. Application No.6900 of 1987 9. Cause shown for delay in filing the substitution application has been satisfactorily explained in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application. 10. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned and delay condonation application is allowed. 11. Substitution Application is also allowed. 12. Office is directed to carry out appropriate substitution in relation to respondent No.3 as stated in the prayer clause of the application within a week. 13. Order on the Writ Petition 14. Heard Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri M.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the heirs of respondent No.3. 15. The facts of the case are that during the consolidation proceedings in the village respondent No.3 filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1953) against entries in the revenue record reflecting the name of the petitioners against certain plots (hereinafter referred to as disputed plots). 15. The facts of the case are that during the consolidation proceedings in the village respondent No.3 filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1953) against entries in the revenue record reflecting the name of the petitioners against certain plots (hereinafter referred to as disputed plots). In the aforesaid objections respondent No.3 alleged that by virtue of Section 20 read with Sections 240-A and 240-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short referred to as Act 1950) he was entitled to be recorded as Sirdar of the disputed plots. On the aforesaid objections Case No.4264 of 1973 was registered in the court of Consolidation Officer. It appears that in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, claim of the petitioners was that they had acquired sirdari rights under Section 210 of the Act 1950. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 22.11.1973 dismissed the objections of respondent No.3 and directed that the name of petitioners be retained in the revenue records relating to the disputed plots. A perusal of the judgment dated 22.11.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer would show that in his aforesaid judgment, the Consolidation Officer has accepted the plea of respondent No.3 that they had acquired sirdari rights over the disputed plots under the Act 1950 because they were recorded as occupants of the disputed plots in the revenue records/Khasra relating to 1356 and 1359 Fasli. However, the Consolidation Officer held that the petitioners had acquired sirdari rights under Section 210 of the Act 1950 as they were recorded in the Khasra of 1367, 1368 and 1369 Fasli. Against the judgment and order dated 22.11.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was registered as Appeal No.232 and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after referring to the revenue records relating to 1375 and 1376 Fasli as well as other documentary evidence recorded a finding that the dispossession of respondent No.3 from the disputed plots and consequential adverse possession of the petitioners over the same was not proved and therefore vide his judgment and order dated 9.8.1974 allowed the aforesaid appeal filed by respondent No.3. Against the judgment and order dated 9.8.1974 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, petitioners filed a Revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as Revision No.99 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his judgment and order dated 25.3.1976 dismissed the said revision filed by the petitioners. Judgment and Orders dated 9.8.1974 and 25.3.1976 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the writ petition. 16. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.3 had not been able to prove his possession over the disputed plots from 1356 Fasli onwards and the possession of the petitioners over the same was proved, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench delivered in Gajadhar Singh Vs. Harnandan Singh, 1964 R.D. 109, Consolidation Officer was right in holding that the petitioners had acquired sirdari rights by adverse possession under Section 210 of the Act 1950 and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation had committed an error of law apparent on the face of record in rejecting the claim of the petitioners vide their judgment and orders dated 9.8.1974 and 25.3.1976. Rebutting the claim of the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there was no evidence on record to establish the possession of the petitioners over the disputed plots inasmuch as the petitioners were never recorded in possession of the disputed plots in the remark columns of Khasra of 1367, 1368 & 1369 Fasli and the respondent No.3 was shown to be in possession of the disputed plots in the revenue records from 1375 Fasli onwards, therefore, judgment and orders dated 9.8.1974 and 25.3.1976 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation setting aside the order dated 22.11.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer and accepting the claim of respondents, as stated by them in their objections filed under Section 9A(2) of the Act 1953, are according to law and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the respondents has referred to para 102-B of the U.P. Land Records Manual and the judgment of this Court reported in Ganga Ram and others Vs. D.D.C. and another, 1982 R.D. 1. 17. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the respondents has referred to para 102-B of the U.P. Land Records Manual and the judgment of this Court reported in Ganga Ram and others Vs. D.D.C. and another, 1982 R.D. 1. 17. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The findings of the Consolidation Officer that respondent No.3 was recorded as an occupant of the disputed plots in the revenue records relating to 1356 and 1359 Fasli and therefore, respondent No.3 acquired sirdari rights under the Act 1950 w.e.f. 29.10.1954 is not in dispute as the order of the Consolidation Officer is not under challenge in the Writ Petition. In the circumstances, judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in Gajadhar Singh Vs. Harnandan Singh, 1964 R.D. 109, is not applicable in the present case as the said judgment relates to circumstances under which an adhivasi would acquire sirdari rights under Section 240-B of the Act 1950. In the present case, the only issue to be decided is whether the findings of the Consolidation Officer that the petitioners had acquired sirdari rights by adverse possession under Section 210 of the Act 1950 was on the basis of evidence on record and according to law. 18. A perusal of the judgment dated 22.11.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer would show that in his aforesaid judgment, the Consolidation Officer has relied upon the Khasras of 1367, 1368 and 1369 Fasli to record a finding that the petitioners had acquired sirdari rights under Section 210 of the Act 1950. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would also show that in the aforesaid revenue records possession of the petitioners was not recorded in the remark columns of the said documents. In view of the judgment of this Court reported in Ganga Ram and others Vs. D.D.C. and another, 1982 R.D. 1, in absence of any such recital in the remark columns of the aforesaid revenue records, no finding of possession over the disputed plots could be drawn in favour of the petitioners. In view of the judgment of this Court reported in Ganga Ram and others Vs. D.D.C. and another, 1982 R.D. 1, in absence of any such recital in the remark columns of the aforesaid revenue records, no finding of possession over the disputed plots could be drawn in favour of the petitioners. In their judgments dated 9.8.1974 and 25.3.1976 Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, after referring to the entries in the revenue records relating to 1375 Fasli onwards, have rightly held that the possession of respondent No.3 over the disputed plots had been proved and dispossession of respondent No.3 from the same and consequential adverse possession of the petitioners was not proved from the evidence on record. The findings recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are based on documentary and oral evidence on record and there is no perversity in the aforesaid finding and thus, the said findings are not subject to examination by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.