HESHAMULLAH Vs. U.P. SANCHALAK CHAKBANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The dispute herein pertains to Gata No.1022. The consolidation operation started on 21.7.1973 on issuance of notification under section 4. In the Basic Year Khatauni the opposite party no.3 Mujibulla was recorded therein consequent to a sale-deed said to have been executed by the erstwhile tenure holder Habib Khan in his favour in the year 1968 which corresponds to 1375F. During partal a dispute arose with regard to Sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. The petitioners who are the sons of Abdul Majid were allegedly found to be in possession of the land in dispute during partal. When the dispute came up for consideration before the Consolidation Officer in the first round of litigation, the Consolidation Officer (C.O.) rejected the claim of the petitioners based on adverse possession vide order dated 8.2.1978, however, when an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (S.O.C.), the same was allowed on 19.9.1978 and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the claim of the petitioners was accepted. Against this the opposite party no.3 filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation (D.D.C.) which was allowed on 10.2.1981. The order of the S.O.C. dated 19.9.1978 was set aside and the order of the C.O. dated 8.2.1978 was restored. The D.D.C. while deciding the revision was persuaded by the fact that the name of Abdul Majid, father of the petitioners came to be recorded in the revenue records for the first time in 1375F as being in possession under Class-9 entry. According to him, the limitation prescribed for perfection of title based on adverse possession became 12 years with effect from 14.11.2017 and, as, the name of Abdul Majid was recorded from 1375F till 1378F, for only 4 Fasli, therefore, the aforesaid period of prescription for perfection of title was not satisfied. He was also persuaded by the fact that the revenue parcha and receipts submitted by the petitioners herein as proof of their continuous and hostile adverse possession were found by him to be of suspect evidentiary value. Based on the aforesaid he declined the claim of the petitioners and allowed the revision of the opposite party no.3.

(3.) The Court finds that the period of limitation for a suit under section 209 prescribed at Serial No.30 of Appendix III referred in Rule 338 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules 1952 was initially two years. Thereafter it has undergone amendments, firstly, on 9.4.1955, when this limitation was extended to three years from the date of vesting, thereafter, it was further amended and extended to six years from the first of July following the date of occupation vide notification dated 27.3.1959 and thereafter it was again amended and extended to 12 years from the first of July following the date of occupation vide notification dated 14.11.1971.