JUDGMENT Sri S.K. Mishra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Matloob, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I.P. Kohli, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, the learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Director, Haridwar being the revisional authority in Revision No. 315 of 2005-06 and Revision No. 316 of 2005-06, after the case was remanded by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2254 of 2001 on 24.10.2005. 3. The facts of the case can be narrated in the date chart as follows:- 09.05.1961. The petitioner has purchased the property bearing Khasra No. 172/2 from its predecessor Sri Multan and Ataru as per the registered sale deed. He claimed possession from that date. 16.07.1961. On the basis of sale deed, the revenue records were mutated and the petitioner was recorded in class II of the revenue records, therefore, he is in possession as Bhumidhar having transferable rights of Khasra No. 172/2. From the date of purchase till 1987 there was no objection by anybody with respect to his title or possession over the same. In the year 1987, the petitioner received a notice of Consolidation proceedings. 20.10.1987. The petitioner has filed the objections. Respondent no. 4 has also filed objection. As per his objection, he alleged claim of possession on the ground that he is recorded in Varg IX in Gata No. 172/2, 290/1 measuring 1 Bigha 15 Biswa. 15.01.1988. The Consolidation Officer, Roorkee passed the order whereby name of the petitioner was recorded. 22.02.1994. The matter was again heard by the Consolidation Officer and he passed the order recording the name of the respondent no. 4 with respect to the land in question. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11/1 of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953. 28.06.1997. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner holding that respondent no. 4 is in possession of the land in question and the petitioner did not examine Part II of the Khatauni which reflected the illegal possession of respondent no. 4. A recall petition was filed on 21.09.1998, but it was dismissed. 14.03.2001. The petitioner challenged the orders of Consolidation/ Assistant Collector, Haridwar. The revisional authority, after hearing the parties, remanded the matter to respondent no. 2 to decide the case afresh. 4. A recall petition was filed on 21.09.1998, but it was dismissed. 14.03.2001. The petitioner challenged the orders of Consolidation/ Assistant Collector, Haridwar. The revisional authority, after hearing the parties, remanded the matter to respondent no. 2 to decide the case afresh. The revisional authority in its remand order dated 14.03.2001 observed that from the record it is not clear that who is in possession of the land and that has to be considered by the Consolidation Officer by holding local inspection. 4. In 2001, respondent no. 4 challenged the order of the revisional authority by filing WPMS No. 2254 of 2001. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Court on 22.10.2005 pleased to dispose of the said writ petition with the following directions:- “………The revisional court has remanded the matter on the ground that the spot inspection is necessary. The revisional court while hearing the revision under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can exercise the powers for inspection either himself or through someone in order to clear the doubt about the possession…………………" 5. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the revisional court on remand. On 07.10.2007, the revisional court passed the order upholding the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer as confirmed by the appellate authority. 6. It is argued by Mr. Mohd. Matloob, the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the revisional authority did not inspect the spot either himself or got it inspected through any of his subordinate officer. Therefore, he failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with him. Further, the learned counsel very empathetically argued that the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, was completely in error in recalling his own order passed on 15.01.1988 recording the name of the petitioner with respect to the land in question on the same being re-agitated by respondent no. 4. He would also argue that the Consolidation Authority, having powers of civil court, are authorised to decide the title and consolidation records should not have been prepared in the name of respondent no. 4 on the basis of illegal possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee confirmed by two higher authorities like the appellate authority i.e. learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Haridwar, and the revisional authority i.e. Dy. 4 on the basis of illegal possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee confirmed by two higher authorities like the appellate authority i.e. learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Haridwar, and the revisional authority i.e. Dy. Director of Consolidation/Assistant Collector, Haridwar, are perverse, in view of the fact that they have recorded a piece of land only on the basis of illegal possession, and, therefore, he argued that the orders passed by the revisional authority confirming the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer upheld in the appeal by the Dy. Director Consolidation Officer should be quashed and land should be ordered to be recorded in the name of the present petitioner. 7. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, the learned counsel for respondent no. 4 very emphatically argued that respondent no. 4 has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. 8. On perusal of the records and also on submissions made by the learned counsel, certain facts are not disputed. They are enumerated as follows:- (i) the petitioner purchased the land by virtue of a registered sale deed from the recorded tenant with respect of Khasra No. 172/2 on 09.05.1961. Since, 09.05.1961 till 1987 there is no dispute about his title or possession. (ii) on 15.01.1998, the Consolidation Officer passed the order whereby the name of the petitioner was recorded. (iii) on 22.02.1994, the same Consolidation Officer then directed that the land should be recorded in the name of respondent no. 4. 9. It is not disputed that mutation has been carried out in favour of the petitioner on 16.07.1961, much prior to the initiation of the consolidation proceedings with respect to the case land. It is also not disputed that respondent no. 4 claims only possession over the land and he has no title otherwise as he is recorded in Varg IX in Gata No. 172/2, 290/1. 10. In order to establish adverse possession, the party claiming such adverse possession must take a specific plea about perfection the title by way of adverse possession. He must plead from the date his possession become adverse to the title of the real owner. Secondly, he must plea that he was in possession openly, peacefully with hostile animus to the title of the real owner, continuously for a period of 12 years. He must plead from the date his possession become adverse to the title of the real owner. Secondly, he must plea that he was in possession openly, peacefully with hostile animus to the title of the real owner, continuously for a period of 12 years. In this case, there is no such plea raised by respondent no. 4. In fact, we have carefully examined the objection filed under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by respondent no. 4 at page 24 of the brief. There is no plea of adverse possession. He only claims hat he is in possession of the land in question. Moreover, the judgment passed by the learned Consolidation Officer is also completely silent about the satisfaction of the ingredients of the adverse possession. In fact, he has not in his order/judgment, come to a conclusion that respondent no. 4 has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The order that passed by the learned Consolidation Officer appears at page 30. We have carefully examined the same and do not find any observation regarding the adverse possession of the opposite party no. 4. Similarly, the appellate authority has also not given any specific finding that respondent no. 4 has acquired the title by way of adverse possession or prescription. Similarly, in the judgment dated 17.10.2007, the Dy. Director of Consolidation/ Assistant Collector, Haridwar being a revisional authority has also not given any specific finding that respondent no. 4 has perfected his title by way of adverse possession only. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned Consolidation Officer confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. the learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation and further upheld by the revisional authority i.e. Dy. Director of Consolidation/Assistant Collector, Haridwar are perverse on the face of the record. 12. Mr. Suyash Pant, the learned Standing Counsel for the State draws the attention of this Court to the reported case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India & Others, (2004) 10 SCC 779 and contends that 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. It is appropriate to take note of the exact words used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the nature of pleadings and proof required to be recorded before holding that a person has acquired title over the property by way of adverse possession. Para 11 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- 11. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is ‘nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See : S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254 , Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567 ). 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 true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC. 13. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC. 13. Thus following this principle, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the consolidation authority confirming concurrent findings by the appellate authority is totally perverse and against the established principle of law, and, therefore, requires interference by issuance of a writ of certiorari and also in exercise of the jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. Orders dated 22.02.1994 (Annexure No. 7), 28.06.1997 (Annexure No. 8) and 17.10.2007 (Annexure No. 12) are hereby set aside. It is further directed that the Consolidation Officer shall prepare the records in the name of the petitioner as it is held by the Consolidation Authority that respondent no. 4 is in possession of the land in question which is also doubtful because the revisional authority has disobeyed the order of this Court by not conducting a local inspection regarding possession of the land. It is further directed that the Consolidation Officer shall give physical possession to the petitioner and if he has already in possession, symbolic possession should be delivered to him. 15. With such observation, the writ petition is allowed. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Urgent certified copies of this order be provided as per rules.