Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GULSHER & OTHERS versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MEERUT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gulsher & Others v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Meerut & Others - WRIT - B No. 42961 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13393 (11 August 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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42961 of 2006

Gulshar and others

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard   Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P. N. Misra, appearing for the contesting respondents.

During consolidation operations, an objection was filed by the petitioners claiming rights over the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. The case of the petitioners was contested by the respondents on the ground that they have purchased the property from the custodian by means of registered sale deed dated 11.12.1967. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.6.1973 allowed the claim of the petitioners on the basis of adverse possession. The said order was challenged by the contesting respondents by filing an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation  allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.2.1994. The petitioners went up in revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  vide order dated 28.4.2006.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the custodian failed to evict the petitioners for more than 12 years as such they perfected right by adverse possession and their right has wrongly been dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has also been urged that entries in their favour in clause 9 was made after following procedure prescribed by law and same has been wrongly discarded.

In reply, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has urged that both Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation   and Deputy Director of Consolidation  have recorded that entries in clause 9 in favour of the petitioners were not in accordance with procedure prescribed by Land Records Manual as such the same has been rightly recorded.

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the Records.

The Consolidation Officer  had allowed the claim of the petitioners on the ground that their names are recorded in clause 9 for more than 12 years without recording any finding with regard to the fact that whether entries in clause 9 were made after following procedure prescribed by Land Records Manual. Settlement Officer Consolidation  has recorded a categorical finding that procedure prescribed in paragraph 81-A and 82-A of the Land Records Manual for making entries in clause 9 has not been followed. It has further been held that there is no evidence to demonstrate that Pa Ka 10 was ever issued and as such the entries in clause 9 cannot be relied upon. The same finding has been confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

It is well settled that unless entries are made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Land Records Manual and notice of Pa Ka 10 is issued and served upon recorded tenure holder, it cannot be presumed that entries of clause 9 have been made in accordance with law and same has no value. No material has been brought on Records to indicate that the finding Recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation  and confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  in this regard are against the evidence on Records or based on non consideration of some material evidence.

In view of the settled legal proposition, the Settlement Officer Consolidation  and Deputy Director of Consolidation  have committed no illegality in discarding the entries of clause 9 in favour of the petitioners made without following the procedure of the Land Records Manual. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.

11.8.2006.


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.