Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGAN NATH versus D.D.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jagan Nath v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 10303 of 1979 [2006] RD-AH 5725 (9 March 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10303 of 1979

Jagannath Prasad Chaturvedi Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and others.

Hon. S.U.Khan, J.

This writ petition is directed against judgment and orders of Consolidation Officer (CO) dated 13.1.1978, Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC) dated 18.11.1978 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) dated 28.9.1979.

Revisions before DDC/ JDC Agra were numbered as Revision Nos. 139 to 144, Jagannath Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. Chotey Lal and others, Revision No. 107, Om Prakash Vs. Jagannath Prasad Chaturvedi, Revision No. 108, Bhajan Lal Vs. Jagannath Prasad Chaturvedi and Revision No. 109 Chotey Lal Versus Jagannath Prasad Chaturvedi.

Revisions were filed under section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P.C.H. Act).

In respect of plot No. 946 (Khata No. 659) matter had already been decided by the High Court whereby High Court had reversed the judgment of Board of Revenue. Before the Consolidation Authorities judgment of the High Court was questioned on the ground that High Court in exercise of writ Jurisdiction could only set-aside the judgment of Board of Revenue and remand the matter however through the said judgment High Court had substituted its own findings, which was beyond the scope of Article 226. Judgment of High Court can be questioned only in the Supreme Court and nowhere else. The argument raised before the Consolidation Authorities was preposterous and was rightly rejected.

Apart from the land of aforesaid Khata No. 659, agricultural plots of the following Khatas was also involved in the cases decided by the Consolidation Authorities.

Khata No. 748, 148 and 660

Initially Khata No. 748 was entered in the name of Poda Ram, Khata No. 148 in the name of Jagannath Petitioner and Khata No. 660 jointly in the names of Jagannath and Poda Ram.

The decisions of Consolidation authorities except with regard to plot No. 482 of Khata No. 748 do not suffer from any such error which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Judgments are based upon correct appraisal of evidence particularly entries in the revenue records. Accordingly the impugned judgments in respect of the plots in dispute except plot No. 482 are affirmed.

As far as plot No. 482 (Khata No. 748) is concerned the case of Bhajan Lal respondent was that even though he purchased half share in the said plot however prior to the sale deed he had matured his right over the entire plot through adverse possession. According to Bhajan Lal, as he had already matured his title over the entire plot hence sale deed through which he purchased half share in the said plot was meaningless and it could not affect his right over the entire plot. The revisional court accepted the said contention of Bhajan Lal and set-aside the contrary finding in that regard recorded by SOC. In my opinion, DDC committed a manifest error of law in this regard. Bhajan Lal purchased half share of plot No. 482. This clearly amounted to unequivocal admission of Bhajan Lal that he was neither the owner of the said plot nor had matured his title over the said plot through adverse possession. If a person is in adverse possession of some immovable property and proceedings for eviction are not initiated against him by the true owner within the statutory period of 12 years then not only the remedy of owner is lost but owner's right is also extinguish  (section 27 of Limitation Act). Consequently the person in possession becomes owner thereof (tenure holder in the case of agricultural land).

Absolutely no evidence of ouster was adduced. In fact ouster had not even been pleaded. A co-sharer can not mature title over the share of other person through adverse possession. In case of co sharers right of a co-sharer may be lost only through ouster by other co-sharers. Neither any such plea was taken nor any evidence was adduced nor any finding was recorded by the courts below.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed in part. Finding of the revisional court in respect of half share in plot No. 482 is quashed and it is held that Bhajan Lal became tenure holder of half portion of plot No. 482 through sale deed and regarding rest half of the portion he had no right.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.