RANCHHOR SINGH Vs. A D C AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri W.H. Khan, Advocate assisted by Sri Gulrez Khan, for the petitioners and their heirs and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, for respondent no. 4 and his heirs.

(2.) The disputed plots in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises are Plot No. 734 (1-4-0) and Plot No. 736 (1-1-0) which are included in Khata No. 116. Notification under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') regarding the village was issued on 10.9.1972. In the basic year records, the petitioners were recorded as co-tenure holders of the disputed plots and since 1372 Fasli, the respondent no. 4 was recorded in Varg 9 against the disputed plots, i.e., as occupier of the disputed plots without the consent of the tenure holder. In the partal done under Section 8 of the Act, 1953 also the respondent no. 4 was found in possession over the disputed plots. The petitioner no. 4 was recorded as minor in the revenue records on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1953. A dispute has been raised in the writ petition regarding the age of the petitioner and the details of the dispute shall be referred subsequently. The respondent no. 4 filed objections under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 claiming to be Sirdar of the disputed plots alleging that he had matured his rights by adverse possession as he was in possession of the plots since before the date of vesting as prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. On the said objections of respondent no. 4, Case No. 4445 under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, 1953 was registered before the Consolidation Officer, Banda, i.e., respondent no. 3. The petitioners filed their reply denying the possession of respondent no. 4 over the disputed plots stating that the entries in the revenue records reflecting the possession of respondent no. 4 were not in accordance with law and were made without giving any notice to the petitioners. In their reply, the petitioners also stated that petitioner no. 4 was a minor and therefore the respondent no. 4 cannot claim to have matured his rights as Sirdar on the basis of adverse possession over the disputed plots. On the pleadings of the parties, the Consolidation Officer framed three Issues for decision. The first was as to whether the respondent no. 4 was a Sirdar of the disputed plots, the second issue was as to whether the petitioners were in possession of the disputed plots and the entries in the revenue records in favour of respondent no. 4 were in accordance with law and the third was as to whether the objections filed by respondent no. 4 were liable to be dismissed on the ground that they had been filed beyond time.

(3.) The Consolidation Officer, i.e., respondent no. 3 vide his judgment and order dated 11.10.1976 partly allowed the objections of respondent no. 4. In his order dated 11.10.1976, the Consolidation Officer held that the entries recording the name of respondent no. 4 in Varg 9 were made after issuing PA-10 to the petitioners which was served on petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the said entries were made in accordance with law. In his order dated 11.10.1976, the Consolidation Officer held that respondent no. 4 had proved his possession over 12 Biswa of Plot No. 734 only since 1372 Fasli and therefore had not matured his rights by adverse possession and consequently rejected the claim of respondent no. 4 over 12 Biswa of Plot No. 734. However, in his order dated 11.10.1976, the Consolidation Officer also held that the respondent no. 4 had proved his possession over the rest 12 Biswa of Plot No. 734 and 1 Bigha 1 Biswa of Plot No. 736 since 1370 Fasli and as the entries in the revenue records reflecting the possession of respondent no. 4 were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual, the respondent no. 4 had matured his rights by adverse possession over the same. In his order dated 11.10.1976, the Consolidation Officer also held that the respondent no. 4 could not claim adverse possession against the petitioner no. 4 as he was a minor till 1973. Consequently, the respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 11.10.1976 rejected the claim/objections of respondent no. 4 so far as 12 Biswa of Plot No. 734 was concerned but held the respondent no. 4 to be Sirdar of 3/4 of the rest 12 Biswa of Plot No. 734 and of 1 Bigha 1 Biswa of Plot No. 736 along with petitioner no. 4 who had 1/4 share in the same. The petitioners filed Appeal No. 542 of 1977 against the order dated 11.10.1976 so far as the same was in favour of respondent no. 4. The order dated 11.10.1976 was also challenged by respondent no. 4 through Appeal Nos. 548 of 1977 and 1034 of 1977 to the extent it rejected the claim of respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 2 vide his order dated 19.11.1977 dismissed Appeal Nos. 548 of 1977 and 1034 of 1977 filed by respondent no. 4 but allowed Appeal No. 542 of 1977 filed by the petitioners and consequently rejected the claim of respondent no. 4 as raised through his objections and directed that the basic year entries regarding Plot Nos. 734 and 736 be retained. While passing the order dated 19.11.1977, the respondent no. 2 held that the entries in the revenue records which showed respondent no. 4 to be in possession of the disputed plots were not made in accordance with the Land Records Manual and were, therefore, not reliable and the adverse possession of respondent no. 4 over the disputed plots was not proved by the evidence on record.