Lurkhu v. D.D.C. and Others

Judgment Reserved on 26.10.2023 Delivered on 31.10.2023, Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 312 of 1978 Petitioner :- Lurkhu Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S. Rai,Vinod Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- R.N. Singh,Anil Kumar Rai,S.C.,S.N.Singh,Vishnu Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for contesting respondents and Sri A.K.Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of State.

¶2This case is arising out of title proceedings decided during consolidation proceedings.

¶3Original petitioner has claimed his right over Khata No.50 i.e. Plot Nos.164, 165 and 166 situated in Village-Garthauli, District-Varanasi being 'Rent Free Grantee' as well as revenue entries of 1356 Fasli and at least upto 1361 Fasli, whereas original contesting respondents have claimed their right on basis of revenue entries of 1362 Fasli and at least till start of consolidation proceedings.

¶4Objections filed by original petitioner were rejected by the Consolation Officer vide order dated 13.1.1977 mainly on ground that respondents have substantiated their rights being recorded on basis of an order dated 24/30.4.1954 passed by concerned Tehsildar and thereafter they continued in possession. The Consolation Officer has also returned a finding that since possession of contesting original respondents continued for more than 12 years and original petitioner has never taken any steps to evict them, therefore, original contesting respondents have perfected their right.

¶5An appeal filed by original petitioner was allowed vide order dated 5.4.1977 and a finding was returned that order passed by Tehsildar in the year 1954 was surrounded by clouds of doubt as well as no benefit of irrigation slips could be granted to original respondents since they were in unauthorised possession. Relevant part thereof is extracted hereinafter: "

वा㛲⹡बिन्㛲⹡ቒ᮵नंर 2 व3

लर खቒ᮵र क䁨䂳तर ⸄㝣सᮡ㝃नकलखतौनी 1356

⸄㝣० 1359

⸄㝣० 1361

⸄㝣० 1362

⸄㝣० 㛲⹡ाखिखलबिकया

गयाह꽯솚ओंकार ना鏧鎼वलर खቒ᮵र गवाह叀湽कᮡ㝃ब्यानहቒ᮵╔䁚ह꽯솚ᯬ⸒बि!तीय

प꽐룣क䁨䂳तर ⸄㝣सᮡ㝃नकलग叀湽शवार ामቒ᮵कमा㛲⹡नम्र ८३ኑⓢलर खቒ᮵र

नामहर ीबि㛲⹡नांक३० .० ኑⓢ.

५ኑⓢनकलखसर ा१३६६⸄㝣० सᮡ㝃

१३७३⸄㝣० 㛲⹡ाखिखलबिकयागयाह꽯솚त鏧鎼ाहर ीव⸄㝣ቒ᮵्ቤ नकᮡ㝃

गवाह叀湽कᮡ㝃ब्यानहቒ᮵╔䁚ह꽯솚ᯬ⸒खतौनी१३५६⸄㝣० १३५ोድ ⸄㝣०

१३६१⸄㝣० व१३५ोድ⸄㝣० कᮡ㝃सीबिववाबि㛲⹡तनम्र 叀湽पर

लर खቒ᮵र कानाम㛲⹡礋Ꚙ1 ह꽯솚ᯬ⸒खतौनी१३६䩡区⸄㝣० मᮡ㝃सव1्ቚ 鏧鎼महर ी

कानामबिववाबि㛲⹡तभूबिमपर 㛲⹡礋Ꚙ1 ह꽯솚और तभीसᮡ㝃र ार 㛲⹡礋Ꚙ1

चला瀖艘र हाह꽯솚खसर ा१३६६⸄㝣० सᮡ㝃१३७३⸄㝣० मᮡ㝃

बिववाबि㛲⹡तभूबिमपर हर ीकानाम㛲⹡礋Ꚙ1 ह꽯솚ᯬ⸒लर खቒ᮵र नᮡ㝃अपनᮡ㝃ब्यान

जि礋Ꚙर हम꘹롟कहाह꽯솚बिकउन्ह叀湽नᮡ㝃बिववाबि㛲⹡तभूबिमकालगानकभीभी

नहीबि㛲⹡याह꽯솚ᯬ⸒उन्ह叀湽नᮡ㝃यहभीस्वीकार बिकयाह꽯솚बिकउन्हᮡ㝃नामन

㛲⹡礋Ꚙ1 ह叀湽नᮡ㝃क䁨䂳礋Ꚙानकार ीचकन्㛲⹡ीमᮡ㝃हቒ᮵यी鏧鎼ीबिकन्तቒ᮵इसात

पर बिव्ቫासनहीबिकया礋Ꚙासकताक्य叀湽बिक्ቦ ीलर खቒ᮵र मालगजꚘु᮵ ार ी;नही;द े㝃;र हे㝃;थ鎼 े㝃;तो湽 ;उन् हे㝃;यह;पता;लगाना;चावि हए䁚 ;थ鎼 ा वि क;मालगु᮵जꚘ ार ी;उनसे㝃;क् यो滀 ;नही;वसलू ;की䂳 ;जꚘ ा;र ही;है솚;खतौनी १३६१;फ㝣 ० ;मे㝃;वि ववावि द त;भूवि म;की䂳 ;माल;गु᮵जꚘ ार ी;१३;रू ० ;१ आ艘 ऩा;११;पाईꖧ ;द जꚘ र;है솚;ओकं ार नाथ鎼 ;गवाह;को湽 ;भूवि म;के㝃 ;बार े㝃;मे롟 पूर ी;जꚘ ानकार ी;नही;है솚;इस;पቚ कार ;यह;स् पष䃃 ;हो湽 ;जꚘ ाता;है솚;वि क वि ववावि द त;भूवि म;पर ;लर खर ु᮵ ;का;कब् जꚘ ा;काफ㝣 ी䂳 ;समय;से㝃;नही;ह।⸒ै솚 हर ी;का;नाम;वि ववावि द त;भूवि म;पर ;१३६२区 ;फ㝣 ० ;मे㝃;वि कस;पቚ कार द जꚘ र;हु᮵आ艘 ;इसका;को湽 ईꖧ ;स् पष䃃 ीकर ण匰 ;नही;है솚;नकल;गो湽 सवार ा;से㝃 स् पष䃃 ; नही;हो湽 ता;वि क; मु᮵कद मा;नम् बर ;८३४ⓢ ;वि कस;कानून;के㝃 अंतगरत;चला;थ鎼 ा;नकल;खसर ा;तथ鎼 ा;गवाहो滀 ;के㝃 ;ब् यानो湽 ;से㝃;यह स् पष䃃 ;हो湽 ;जꚘ ाता;है솚;वि क;वि ववावि द त;भूवि म;पर ;हर ी;का;कब् जꚘ ा;१२区 साल;से㝃;अधि धक;समय;से㝃;लगातार ;चला;आ艘 ;र हा;है솚;इस;पቚ कार हर ी;भूवि म;के㝃 ;सीर द ार ;हो湽 ते㝃;ह।⸒ै솚 ;लर खर ु᮵ ;का;अधि धकार ;समा्ኸ ;हो湽 जꚘ ाता;है솚;द ो湽 नो湽 ;वाद ;वि बन् द ओ;का;वि नण匰 रय;इस;पቚ कार ;हो湽 ;जꚘ ाता;ह।⸒ै솚ु᮵ xxx मै솚ने㝃;पक룣 ो滀 ;के㝃 ;वि वदान;अधि धवकሹ ाओ;ं के㝃 ;तकर;का;शቦ वण匰 ;वि कया;और पतቔ ावली;का;अवलो湽 कन;वि कया।⸒ ; खतौनी;१३५६;फ㝣 ० ;मे㝃;खाता;नम् बर ;३३;व;३२区 ,;५७, ८२区 ,११० ,;१३५;पर ;उकሹ ;भूवि म;पर ;लर खर ;पु᮵तቔ ;अलि लयार ;के㝃ु᮵ नाम;वि वला;लगान;का;द जꚘ र;ह।⸒ै솚 ;१३५९ድ ;फ㝣 ० ;मे㝃;ऐसा;ही;इन् दቖ ाजꚘ द जꚘ र;थ鎼 ा।⸒ ;१३६१;फ㝣 ० ;मे㝃;लर खर ु᮵ ;का;नाम;सीर द ार ी;मे㝃;उकሹ ;भूवि म के㝃 ;खाता;नंबर ;१२区 ;पर ;द जꚘ र;हआ艘 ।⸒ ;१३६२区 ;फ㝣 ० ;मे㝃;हर ी;पु᮵तቔु᮵ णि शववर न;गो湽 साईꖧ ;का;नाम;पूवर;१३६० ;फ㝣 ० ;मे㝃;द जꚘ र;हए䁚 ।⸒ ;तब;से㝃ु᮵ हर ी;के㝃 ;नाम;इन् दቖ ाजꚘ ;है솚;अपील;कतार;का;कथ鎼 न;है솚;वि क;उकሹ ;भूवि म पर ;उनका;नाम;चढ़ ना;चावि हए䁚 ।⸒ ;उ्ቈ र ;वाद ी;के㝃 ;वि वदान;अधि धवकሹ ा का;तकर ;है솚;वि क;१३५६;व;१३५९ድ ;फ㝣 मर;लर खर ु᮵ ;का;नाम;वि वल ;ए䁚 वजꚘ ;माफ㝣 ी䂳 ;द जꚘ र;थ鎼 ी;अतः㜍 ;धार ा;१८;जꚘ ;उ;;.;;कानून;मे㝃;भूवि मधर ; हए䁚 ।⸒ ;१३६१;फ㝣 ० ;मे㝃;लर खर ;के㝃 ;नाम;सीर द ार ी;का;इन् दቖ ाजꚘु᮵ ु᮵ वि मलता;ह।⸒ै솚 ;१३६२区 ;फ㝣 ० ;के㝃 ;खतौनी;मे㝃;ए䁚 क;वि कतावत;की䂳 ;गलती के㝃 ;कार ण匰 ;हर꾖 र ;को湽 ;पूवर;१३६० ;ही;लि लख;वि द या;गया।⸒ ;यह;इन् दቖ ाजꚘ गलत;नही;है솚;क् यो湽 वि क;तहसीलद ार ;महो湽 द य;के㝃 ;आ艘 द े㝃श;से㝃;यह इन् दቖ ाजꚘ ;हु᮵आ艘 ;थ鎼 ा।⸒ ;उ्ቈ र वाद ी;के㝃 ;इस;कथ鎼 न;को湽 ;सही;मान;ले㝃;तो湽 तहसीलद ार ;महो湽 द य;का;अमल;द र ामद ;१३६१ ;फ㝣 ० ;की䂳 खतौनी;मे㝃;हो湽 ना;चावि हए䁚 ;अथ鎼 वा;आ艘 द े㝃श;की䂳 ;नकल;द े㝃नी;चावि हए䁚 वि कन् तु᮵;ऐसा;को湽 ईꖧ ;अमल;द र ामद ;१३६१;फ㝣 ० ;की䂳 ;खतौनी;मे㝃 द े㝃खने㝃;को湽 ;नही;वि मलता।⸒ ;यह;सही;है솚;वि क;हर꾖 र ;खद ु᮵ ;इस;भूवि म;का लगान;अद ा;कर ;र हे㝃;है솚;वि कन् तु᮵;यह;अनाधि धकार ;जि जꚘ सके㝃 ;नाम इन् दቖ ाजꚘ ;हु᮵आ艘 ;और ;वह;अनाधि धकार ;रू प;से㝃;लगान;जꚘ मा;कर ;र हे㝃

ह꽯솚त叀湽इसकाअ鏧鎼1 यहनहीह꽯솚बिकइसभूबिमकᮡ㝃माखिलकहर ीह꽯솚

तहसील㛲⹡ार मह叀湽㛲⹡यक叀湽Iार ा३ኑⓢयू

. पी .

ल꽯솚न्䂌㜫鶴꾖र वन्यू╔䁚क्ट

" ३ोድमᮡ㝃हर ीक叀湽भूबिमIर 㛲⹡礋Ꚙ1 कर नᮡ㝃काअधिIकार नहीह꽯솚ᯬ⸒ (Emphasis Supplied)

¶6In the aforesaid circumstances, original contesting respondent herein filed a revision petition which was allowed vide order dated 5.12.1977. The Revisional Authority not only placed reliance on an order passed by Tehsildar, but has also taken note that original petitioner has failed to file any irrigation slip or any other documents to prove their continuous possession, whereas it was further held that original respondents have been able to prove their continuous possession on basis of documents. This order is impugned in present writ petition.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently placed his case that a well reasoned order passed by Appellate Authority was lightly and erroneously interfered by the Revisional Authority, without appreciating oral evidence as well as revenue records that original petitioner was recorded from 1356 Fasli to 1361 Fasli and thereafter contesting original respondents were recorded without any basis.

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Revisional Authority has unnecessary given importance to non-submission of irrigation payment slips without considering that original respondents were in unauthorised possession of land in dispute since their names were recorded in revenue records, therefore receipts were issued in their name.

¶9Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that order passed by Tehsildar was never placed on record and even details as mentioned in Goshwara it was a case filed by original petitioner and not by original contesting respondents.

¶10Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in Ram Naresh and Ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors, 1978 RD, 118.

¶11Above submissions were opposed by Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for respondents that even before basic year, name of original contesting respondents was recorded in the revenue records and they remained in continuous possession and in support of above submission, irrigation and rent slips were filed before Consolidation Authorities. He further submitted that in order to prove original petitioner's possession, he ought to have filed documents, however, no document was filed. Even in case he was a Rent Free Grantee, the original petitioner has to pay rent at least after Zamindari Abolition, but no such slip was placed on record.

¶12Learned counsel for the respondents referred at length judgment passed by the Revisional Authority. He further submitted that no suit under Section 209 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950') was filed.

¶13In rejoinder learned counsel for petitioner has referred para 13 of the rejoinder affidavit, which is reproduced hereinafter: "The paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit is not admitted. The averments made in paras 15 and 16 of the writ petition are reiterated as correct. Hari opp. party was never in possession over the land in dispute and he never irrigated the disputed land from any sources. The Opp. party has not filed the copy of the irrigation slips, revenue papers, and oral evidence as alleged. No document of irrigation has been filed to show that disputed land was irrigated by the Opp. parties. The fictitious and got up irrigation slips were inadmissible evidence. Those slips were never followed by any irrigation payment dues receipts. Their genuineness is self exposed. The unauthorised entry in the revenue papers could not confer any title on the Opp. party. The illegal entry in the revenue papers, are inadmissible evidence. Therefore, findings based there in, are vitiated by manifest error of law. The reasons recorded in the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation shall alone be looked into. The Deputy Director Consolidation has not considered the entire material evidence on the record. The findings Deputy Director Consolidation is perverse. It is incorrect to say that the petitioner was in possession over the disputed land. There is no explanation for the revenue entries in favour of petitioner in Khasra and Khatauni 1356, and 1359 Fs. Before the date of vesting. Petitioner's name was also recorded in khasra and khatauni of 1361 F. Petitoner's name was wrongly removed from the revenue papers abruptly in unauthorised and illegal manner thereafter. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever surrendered the holding. The consolidation officer and Deputy Director Consolation have wrongly based their findings on the illegal and unauthorised entry in the revenue papers, made from 1362F. Onwards without any knowledge to the petitioner. It is incorrect to say that the Opp. Party has been irrigating the disputed land from tube-well for the last 12 years. There is no tube-well in the vicinity. The petitioner has not produced the documentary evidence to prove the irrigation of the disputed land from the government tube-well. The consolidation authorities have wrongly observed otherwise. The Opp. party has not filed the said document, relating to irrigation before this Court for perusal. It is incorrect to say that the Opp. parties are in possession for more than 30 years."

¶14Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

¶15Petitioner's claim was based on revenue entries of the year 1356 Fasli to 1361 Fasli being rent free grantee, whereas claim of contesting respondents was based on revenue entries of 1362 Fasli till the consolidation proceedings commenced as well as on receipts of irrigation slips of payment of rent. Their claim was further supported by an order dated 24/30.4.1954 passed by Tehsildar.

¶16The Appellate Authority has accepted claim of original petitioner on ground that revenue entries were in his favour as well as no benefit could be granted to original contesting respondents of an order passed by the Tehsildar. Appellate Authority has returned a finding that in terms of Section 18 of the Act of 1950, original petitioner has become Sirdar.

¶17Above findings were set-aside by the Revisional Authority that order dated 24/30.4.1954 passed by the Tehsildar was recorded in Khatauni and Register Malkaan and therefore there was no reason to dispute it. Further finding was returned that original petitioner has failed to submit any irrigation slips. Relevant part of said order is mentioned hereinafter: "

इससंंI मᮡ㝃बिनगर ानीकता1 कᮡ㝃बिव!ानअधिIव्ሹा!ार ास्प㝵䃃

बिकयागयाह꽯솚बिक

बि㛲⹡नांक䩡区ኑⓢ

. ० ኑⓢ .

५ኑⓢकᮡ㝃तहसील㛲⹡ार कᮡ㝃सन्㛲⹡ቝኌभत

瀖艘㛲⹡ᮡ㝃शक䁨䂳नकलअ्ቚ ाᮇኸह叀湽नासंभवनहीह꽯솚क्य叀湽बिकबिनIा1鶴꾖र तअवधिI

ीतचቒ᮵क䁨䂳ह꽯솚वहअशिभलᮡ㝃खअशिभलᮡ㝃खागार !ार ान㝵䃃बिकया礋Ꚙाचቒ᮵काह꽯솚

बि⸄㝣र भीखतौनीवर जि礋Ꚙस्टर मालकान瀖艘बि㛲⹡कᮡ㝃इन््ቖा礋Ꚙत鏧鎼ाबिनगर ानी

कता1 कᮡ㝃कब्礋Ꚙᮡ㝃कᮡ㝃सम鏧鎼1नम꘹롟्ቚ स्तቒ᮵तर सी㛲⹡लगानऔर पर चा瀖艘वपासी

त鏧鎼ाबिवप꽐룣ी!ार ाइसकाखन्डनात्मकसाቌኚयनबि㛲⹡╔䁚礋Ꚙानᮡ㝃कᮡ㝃कार 匞匰यह

माना礋Ꚙानाचाबिह╔䁚बिकउ्ሹ 瀖艘㛲⹡ᮡ㝃शकᮡ㝃瀖艘Iार पर बिनगर ानीकता1 काबि礋Ꚙ

और 㛲⹡खीलवअंबिकतहቒ᮵瀖艘鏧鎼ाᯬ⸒

बिनगर ानीकता1 क䁨䂳ओर सᮡ㝃यहभीकहा

गयाबिकबि㛲⹡नांक० ८.० ७.

५३क䁨䂳अधिIसूचना!ार ासभीतहसील㛲⹡ार 叀湽

क叀湽सहायककलक्टर ्ቚ 鏧鎼म्ቦ ᮡ㝃匞匰ीकाअधिIकार ्ቚ 㛲⹡ानबिक╔䁚ग╔䁚鏧鎼ᮡ㝃और

अपीलन्यायालयकायहबिनष्क湞屸1 गलतह꽯솚बिकसᮡ㝃हतकाग礋Ꚙातकᮡ㝃

मቒ᮵क㛲⹡मᮡ㝃कᮡ㝃अन्तग1तबिनगर ानीकता1 क叀湽लर खቒ᮵र कᮡ㝃स्鏧鎼ानपर तौर

भूबिमIर 㛲⹡礋Ꚙ1 कर नᮡ㝃कातहसील㛲⹡ार क叀湽क叀湽鎗ꖧअधिIकार नही鏧鎼ाबिनगर ानी

कता1 नᮡ㝃यहभीकहाह꽯솚बिकउसनᮡ㝃१३६䩡区⸄㝣० सᮡ㝃瀖艘礋Ꚙतकअपनᮡ㝃

कब्礋Ꚙᮡ㝃कापया1ᮇኸसाቌኚयन्यायालयकᮡ㝃सम꽐룣्ቚ स्तቒ᮵तबिकयाह꽯솚और र सी㛲⹡

लगान瀖艘वपासी瀖艘बि㛲⹡सᮡ㝃स्प㝵䃃ह꽯솚बिककब्礋Ꚙाउसीकाह꽯솚礋Ꚙबिकबिवप꽐룣ी

लर खቒ᮵र नᮡ㝃इसकᮡ㝃礋Ꚙवा मᮡ㝃अपनाकब्礋Ꚙा्ቚ माशि匞匰तकर नᮡ㝃कᮡ㝃खिलयᮡ㝃क叀湽鎗ꖧ

र सी㛲⹡लगानपर चा瀖艘वपासीयाखसर ा瀖艘बि㛲⹡क䁨䂳नकलनही्ቚ स्तቒ᮵त क䁨䂳ᯬ⸒

बिवप꽐룣ीक䁨䂳ओर सᮡ㝃कहागयाह꽯솚बिक१३५६⸄㝣० व१३५ोድ⸄㝣० मᮡ㝃

लर खቒ᮵र ही瀖艘र ा礋Ꚙीबिन礋Ꚙा鎗ꖧपर 㛲⹡礋Ꚙ1 鏧鎼ाव१३६䩡区⸄㝣० कᮡ㝃र जि礋Ꚙस्टर

मालकानक䁨䂳नकल⸄㝣र 礋Ꚙीह꽯솚ᯬ⸒मूलर जि礋Ꚙस्टर कᮡ㝃इन््ቖा礋Ꚙसᮡ㝃बिमलानकᮡ㝃

वा㛲⹡यह瀖艘र 叀湽पअसत्यपायागयाᯬ⸒इसकᮡ㝃अधित鶴꾖र ्ሹ बिवप꽐룣ीयहनही

तासकाबिकयबि㛲⹡वह㛲⹡स्तूर १३५ोድ⸄㝣० सᮡ㝃काबि礋Ꚙव㛲⹡खीलचला

瀖艘र हाह꽯솚त叀湽उसनᮡ㝃अपनᮡ㝃कब्礋Ꚙᮡ㝃कᮡ㝃सम鏧鎼1नमᮡ㝃वबिनगर ानीकता1 कᮡ㝃㛲⹡ावᮡ㝃

काखन्डनकर नᮡ㝃कᮡ㝃खिल╔䁚र सी㛲⹡लगानपर ची瀖艘वपासीयाखसर ᮡ㝃क䁨䂳

नकलᮡ㝃क्य叀湽नही्ቚ स्तቒ᮵तक䁨䂳ᯬ⸒वहयहनहीतासकाबिक१३६䩡区⸄㝣०

सᮡ㝃चलᮡ㝃瀖艘र हᮡ㝃बिनगर ानीकता1 कᮡ㝃नामक䁨䂳礋Ꚙानकार ीउसᮡ㝃क्य叀湽नहीह叀湽

सक䁨䂳ᯬ⸒यबि㛲⹡वास्तवम꘹롟कब्礋Ꚙाव㛲⹡खलस्वयंउसीका鏧鎼ाᯬ⸒

बिवप꽐룣ीका

यहभीतक1 ह꽯솚बिकहर ीबिनाबिकसीस꽐룣मन्यायालयकᮡ㝃瀖艘㛲⹡ᮡ㝃शकᮡ㝃सीIᮡ㝃

खसर ᮡ㝃कᮡ㝃 असलखानᮡ㝃मᮡ㝃㛲⹡礋Ꚙ1 ह叀湽गया鏧鎼ाऔर ऐसᮡ㝃गलतऔर

अऩाधिIकृतइन््ቖा礋Ꚙकᮡ㝃瀖艘Iार पर उसᮡ㝃क叀湽鎗ꖧहकनहीबिमलताऔर न

╔䁚ᮡ㝃सᮡ㝃इन््ቖा礋Ꚙक叀湽कायमर खा礋Ꚙानाचाबिह╔䁚ᯬ⸒म꽯솚उ्ሹ बिववᮡ㝃चनाक䁨䂳दृबि㝵䃃सᮡ㝃

इसतक1 मᮡ㝃क叀湽鎗ꖧलनहीपाताᯬ⸒चकन्㛲⹡ीन्यायालयकब्礋Ꚙᮡ㝃कᮡ㝃瀖艘Iार

पर हीकाश्तकार ीअधिIकार 叀湽काबिन匞匰1यकर ताह꽯솚और खसर ा瀖艘बि㛲⹡

साቌኚयसᮡ㝃बिनगर ानीकता1 हर ीकाकब्礋Ꚙाही्ቚ माशि匞匰तर हाह꽯솚ᯬ⸒बिवप꽐룣ी

瀖艘ल叀湽च्यअवधिI मᮡ㝃अपनाकब्礋Ꚙासाबितनहीकर सकाऔर 瀖艘Iार

व湞屸1 मᮡ㝃बिनगर ानीकता1 हीअंबिकतभीह꽯솚ᯬ⸒बिवप꽐룣ीक䁨䂳ओर सᮡ㝃्ቚ स्तቒ᮵त

礋Ꚙानीसहा㛲⹡तमᮡ㝃भीक叀湽鎗ꖧलनहीह꽯솚अत᱃㜍म꽯솚१३६䩡区⸄㝣सᮡ㝃चलᮡ㝃瀖艘

र हᮡ㝃瀖艘Iार व湞屸1 कᮡ㝃इन््ቖा礋Ꚙक叀湽बिनर स्तकर नᮡ㝃कᮡ㝃खिल╔䁚य鏧鎼ᮡ㝃㝵䃃औधिचत्यनही

पाताᯬ⸒अपीलन्यायालयका瀖艘㛲⹡ᮡ㝃शइनतथ्य斶滀क䁨䂳बिववᮡ㝃चनाकᮡ㝃बिना

पा鶴꾖र तहቒ᮵瀖艘ह꽯솚और त㛲⹡नቒ᮵सार बिनर स्तह叀湽नᮡ㝃य叀湽ग्यह꽯솚ᯬ⸒म꽯솚इसᮡ㝃बिनर स्त

कर ताहू셀껆और बिनगर ानीस्वीकार कर तᮡ㝃हቒ᮵╔䁚चकन्㛲⹡ीअधिIकार ीका

बिन匞匰1यबि㛲⹡नांक१३

. ० १ .

७७वऔर 瀖艘Iार व湞屸1 काइन््ቖा礋Ꚙ㛲⹡स्तቒ᮵र र खᮡ㝃

礋Ꚙातᮡ㝃ह꽯솚ᯬ⸒

" (Emphasis Supplied)

¶18As referred above, doubt created by the petitioner before Revisional Authority in respect of entries was rejected by specific reasons, therefore, at this stage, on basis of order passed by the Tehsildar dated 24/30.4.1954, no dispute could be raised in respect of revenue entries in favour of original petitioner or original respondents, therefore revenue entries made in favour of petitioner were from 1356 Fasli to 1361 Fasli whereas from 1362 Fasli till the commencement of consolidation proceedings revenue entries were in favour of contesting respondents.

¶19Section 18 of the Act of 1950 provides settlement of certain lands with intermediaries or cultivators including 'Rent Free Grantee' as Bhumidhar and for such settlement relevant date would be the date of vesting i.e. 1.7.1952 and corresponding Fasli Year would be 1359.

¶20As referred above, revenue entries were in favour of original petitioner since 1356 Fasli. However, in the subsequent year i.e. 1362 Fasli and till the consolidation proceedings commenced, revenue entries were in favour of contesting respondents and for such a long period admittedly the original petitioner has never taken any steps i.e. neither filed a suit under Section 209 of the Act of 1950 nor any other proceedings were initiated. There is no documentary evidence with the original petitioner that the land was in possession of original petitioner subsequent to 1362 Fasli.

¶21Even if it is assumed that by virtue of Section 18 of the Act of 1950, the original petitioner became Bhumidhar still since original contesting respondents were recorded in pursuance of an order dated 24/30.4.1954 passed by Tehsildar which was duly recorded in records and they were able to prove their possession from 1362 Fasli to at least till basic year, therefore, it could not be held that their possession and revenue entries were without any legal basis. In these circumstances, act of original petitioner for not taking any proceedings to evict them would be adverse to his claim.

¶22In the aforesaid circumstances only on the basis of revenue entries in favour of original petitioner in the Fasli year 1356 to Fasli year 1361 and in absence of any document that he was in possession of land in dispute thereafter or has taken any attempt to evict the original contesting respondents, the Court could not upset finding returned by the Revisional Authority, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶23Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date:31.10.2023. SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad