BUDHU Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M. K. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ayub Khan, advocate for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THE dispute relates to Khata No. 218 consisting of Plot Nos. 31, 36, 237, 407 and 436 of village Ikbara, Pargana Hastinapur, district Meerut. According to the facts disclosed in the writ petition, in the basic year Khatauni the name of contesting respondent No. 2 was recorded in Column No. 8 and the name of Chhatra, father of the petitioner was found to be in possession over the said plot. During the consolidation operation, the petitioners filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that they were in possession since last more than 18 years. Counter objection was filed by the respondents denying the claim of the petitioners. THE contesting respondents claimed that Chhatra, father of the petitioners was their servant and therefore, he cannot claim any right on the basis of his possession. He used to plough fields on behalf of the contesting respondents but not as the owner in possession, only in capacity of a servant and, therefore, his name should be expunged. THE Consolidation Officer allowed the objection vide order dated 29.1.1977 which was challenged in appeal. THE appeal was remanded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation with a direction that the statement of the witnesses be recorded on the question of land revenue receipts and also thumb impression of Chhatra appended on the registered sale deed alleged to be executed by him in favour of other persons, which was liable to be examined. THE respondents challenged the order in revision which was dismissed. THE Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of Chhatra and came to a conclusion that he was the exclusive Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute vide order dated 20.9.1979. THE respondents went up in appeal which stood dismissed vide order dated 28.11.1980. THE revision preferred by the contesting respondents was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.1.1982.

(3.) I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the orders. The entire foundation of the petitioner's case is on the basis of adverse possession. It was the duty of the petitioners to establish that P.A.-10 was prepared and served upon the recorded tenure holders. A presumption of the correctness of the entries could be arrived at only if it is made in accordance with relevant provision of Land Records Manual and also where a person claiming adverse possession has to establish that he had not received P.A.-10 and he had no knowledge of the entries, due notice in prescribed Form P.A.-10 is essential. In the case of Tiryan v. Bhagwat Prasad, 1974 RD 268, it was held that to avail a right on the basis of adverse possession, it is for the defendant to prove that he has extinguished the right of the plaintiff being in continuous possession. Similar view was expressed in the case of Gurmukh Singh and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Nainital and others, 1997 (88) RD 276 : 1997(2) AWC 649. In another case Jamuna Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Agra and others, 1981 RD 112, the Court had repelled the contention that the burden of proof was upon the person who challenges the correctness of the entries. It cannot be said that the presumption of correctness of the entries in the revenue records are to the detriment of the plaintiff, therefore an onus lay upon the respondent to prove that the entries showing the petitioner's possession had not been in accordance with law. In the case of Sadhu Saran and another v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others, 2003 (94) RD 535, it was held that in case the authorities have not come to conclusion that P.A.-10 was issued or not, it was held that the entry of Clause 9 and the same was made without any order of the competent authority. In another case Mahadeo v. Joint Director of Consolidation and others, 2006 (100) RD 778, it was held that adverse possession contemplates not only continuity of the possession as against the true owner but also that the true owner had full knowledge that person in possession was in hostile possession entitling him to claim title on the basis of the said possession. The petitioner has not been able to establish that the entry recorded in 'Varg 20' is conclusive, specially in absence of any order by a competent authority. The petitioner at no stage claimed his right either prior or subsequent to the abolition of Zamindari. The heirs of Chattar came forward with an objection only when consolidation operation commenced. In absence of any cogent and valid evidence, the petitioner is not entitled to any right on the basis of adverse possession.