Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NET RAM versus D.D.C. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Net Ram v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 1035 of 1975 [2006] RD-AH 9053 (5 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1035 of 1975

Net Ram and others  Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

No one appears for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Rameshwar Dayal - Respondent no.3 filed objections before Consolidation officer claiming sirdari rights.  The only basis of the said claim was that his name was entered in the remark column of khasras from 1368 to 1372 fasli as occupant.  Neither before 1368 nor after 1372 fasli name of Rameshwar Dayal was entered in the remarks column. The name of petitioner and his other co-sharers was recorded as sirdar since Zamindari Abolition till basic year.  The Consolidation officer by order dated 30.1.1970 passed in case no.1018 - Rameshwar Dayal vs. Churamani and others held that Rameshwar Dayal had no right over the land.  Consolidation officer held that Rameshwar Dayal was only paid Priest of the opposite parties.  Consolidation officer also held that Rameshwar Dayal failed to prove adverse possession.  Against the said judgment and order Rameshwar Dayal filed Appeal no.763/550.  Assistant S.O.C., Mainpuri camp Shahjahanpur allowed the appeal on 30.7.1973.  Petitioners filed revision no.240 against the said judgment.  Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria camp- Shahjahanpur dismissed the revision on 19.7.1974 hence this writ petition.

In my opinion S.O.C. and D.D.C. committed error of law in holding the adverse possession of Rameshwar Dayal to be proved merely on the basis of entries in remarks column of khasra for four years. If Ramesh Dayal had continued in possession till basic year, his name should also have continued in the revenue records till then and should have been recorded in the revenue records of basic year which was not the position.  Even it was not proved that the first entry in favour of Rameshwar Dayal regarding his possession was made in accordance with relevant rules/paragraphs of Land Record Manual.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.  Judgment and order of S.O.C. and D.D.C. are set aside.  Judgment and order passed by Consolidation officer is restored.

5.5.2006

RS/-


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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