Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. FAZLURAHAMAN versus D.D.C.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohd. Fazlurahaman v. D.D.C.& Others - WRIT - B No. 2940 of 1974 [2007] RD-AH 11497 (9 July 2007)

 

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

Hon. Janardan Sahai,J

In the basic year  the petitioners were recorded in the tenants column. Objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the respondents Jumman and Syed. Riasat Hussain, respondents 2 and 3 alleging that they are in adverse possession over the disputed land and had matured their rights. In support of their case the respondents filed khasra exctracts of 1362 F, 1363F and of other years including 12 years khasra for the period 1365-1376 Fasli. The Consolidation Officer did not rely upon the khasra extracts on the ground that it was not proved that PA 10 was served upon the tenants. The oral evidence of the respondents was also not found reliable. The appeal of the respondents was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation a revision was filed by the respondents, which has been allowed by the Dy.Director of Consolidation. The Dy.Director of Consolidation has relied upon the khasra entries of 1365-76 Fasli and has found the possession of the respondents proved. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Dy.Director of Consolidation.

List revised. None has appeared for the respondents. I have heard Sri C.S.Agnihotri counsel for the petitioners.

The Dy.Director of Consolidation has found that the possession of the respondent Jumman was established from the khasra extracts of 1365-76 F. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has observed that while the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation have found that PA10 was not reliable but had failed to record a finding as to what was the infirmity. The finding of the Dy. Director of Consolidation appears to be erroneous. The Settlement Officer has referred to the khasra extracts of 1362F and 1363F in which reference is made to issuance of PA10 when in those years the requirement of issuing PA10 had not been introduced. It was also found that all the khasra extracts were in the same writing and appeared to be 'farzi'. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation have also recorded a finding that the service of PA 10 was not proved upon the tenants and that the khasra extracts therefore could not be relied upon. The Dy.Director of Consolidation has not considered these aspects. In the circumstances it is appropriate that the matter be decided by the Dy.Director of Consolidation afresh. The writ petition is allowed. The  order of the Dy.Director of Consolidation dated 7.3.73 is set aside and the case is remanded to him for decision afresh in accordance with law after considering oral and the documentary evidence.

Dt: 9/7/07sm

wp2940/74


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.