Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mangroo & Another v. Ram Sumer & Another - WRIT - B No. 2013 of 1973 [2006] RD-AH 10473 (26 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).



   Judgment Reserved on 18.5.2006

   Judgment Delivered on 26.5.2006


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1973

Mangaroo and others Versus Ram Sumer and others.

Connected With

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2012 of 1973

Sant Ram Versus Ram Sumer and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Originally Shiv Raj was tenure holder of the agricultural land in dispute and on his death his son Ram Samujh inherited the land. Respondent No.1 Ram Sumer is son of Ram Samujh. In the revenue records of 1331 fasli (1923-24 A.D) names of Parag, Jhakari and Bali Karan were recorded as tenants and name of Ram Samujh was recorded as Farar (i.e a person who has abandoned the land). After about 10 years in the revenue records the names of Sarju, Ram Din, Bhullan and Ram Narain were recorded as tenure holders. After some time along with the said four persons the name of Ram Samujh was also recorded in the revenue records as co-tenure holder and all the five persons were shown to be the co-tenants to the extent of 1/5 share each. This position continued even after Zamindari Abolition and till the basic year.

After start of consolidation proceedings Ram Sumer respondent No.1 son of Ram Samujh filed objections claiming exclusive right in the property in dispute. He asserted that in 1331 fasli status of his father was wrongly shown as Farari (abandonment) and the names of Parag, Jhakari and Bali Karan were wrongly recorded as tenants. He further contended that after 10 years the names of Sarju, Ram Din, Bhullan and Ram Narain were also recorded wrongly. (Petitioners are successors in interest of these four persons apart from Bhullan who was himself petitioner No.2 in the second writ petition).

Consolidation Officer (C.O) as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) rejected the case of Ram Sumer. The case before Consolidation Officer Chetra No.2 Tehsil Bansi district Basti was registered as case No. 1505 Ram Sumer Versus Bhullan and others and was decided on 28.9.1970. Through the said order the share of Mangaroo, Bhullan and Ram Sumer was determined to be 1/3 each (Ram Din and Ram Narain had already sold their shares). Against the said judgment, Appeal No. 1328 was field by Ram Sumer. Assistant S.O.C, Basti allowed the appeal on 20.5.1972. S.O.C completely misconstrued the order of C.O. C.O had not directed for removal of the name of Ram Sumer from the revenue records. C.O had granted proportionate share to Ram Sumer. S.O.C thought that C.O had directed the removal of the name of Ram Sumer. S.O.C therefore allowed the appeal, set-aside the order of C.O dated 29.9.1970 and directed that the name of Ram Sumer must be recorded as co-tenant in the revenue records alongwith Bhullan and others, in the Khata in question (Khata No.65). Exactly same thing had been done by the C.O also. Ram Sumer filed revision against the judgments of C.O and S.O.C before D.D.C Basti being Revision No. 3450. D.D.C through judgment and order dated 16.11.1972, allowed the revision and directed that the name of Ram Sumer alone shall be recorded over the entire land. The said judgment has been challenged by Mangaroo son of Sarju, Bhullan and Jugul through the second writ petition. Through first writ petition purchasers of part of the property in dispute have challenged the same order.

Ram Sumer admitted that his father Ram Samujh had gone to another place Kaishana and returned after 25 years.

Revisional court held that formal proceedings for recording abandonment (farari) by Ram Samujh were not taken. In the revenue records of 1924-25 Ram Samujh was recorded as Farari. There is always a presumption of correctness of revenue entries and by the passage of time presumption becomes stronger and stronger. Absolutely no reason was given as to why Ram Samujh did not take any steps for correction of revenue records. More over much before Zamindari Abolition the name of Ram Samujh was included in the revenue records alongwith the name of Sarju, Ram Din, Bhullan and Ram Narain. Certainly this must have been done on the request of Ram Samujh. This clearly meant that Ram Samujh was fully aware that his name was not there in the revenue records hence he requested for inclusion of his name alongwith the names of aforesaid four persons. Thereafter it was not open either to Ram Samujh or after his death to his son Ram Sumer to contend that Ram Samujh was the exclusive co-tenure holder of the land in dispute.

In consolidation matters, often it happens that people start challenging revenue entries standing for more than half, half or quarter century. The presumption attached with the correctness of revenue entries particularly if they are continuing for a very long time and since before Zamindari Abolition can not be lightly taken to be rebutted. Oral evidence of the things which may have happened long before is not easy to find except in rare cases where something extra ordinary is shown to exist. Certainty in respect of property rights is very essential. General uncertainty in respect of revenue entries standing since long and before Zamindari Abolition may lead to anarchy. In several cases consolidation courts have done exactly the same. The purpose of consolidation is taken to be resurrection of dead (buried) disputes or revival of dormant ones. In fact this is not the sprit of consolidation Act. Under Section 9(2) of U.P.C.H. Act only disputes of recent past may be raised. Consolidation Act provides a new forum for adjudication of disputes but not a new opportunity for the same. In some cases people assert their rights on the basis of revenue entries which discontinued about 100 years before and consolidation courts seriously entertain the said objections and some times direct reversal of revenue entries continuing for about 100 years. There are several doctrines of law on the basis of which such exercise is prohibited like Limitation, Acquiescence, Estoppel, Presumption of Correctness of Official Acts including revenue entries becoming stronger and stronger by passage of time, waiver, implied surrender and implied ouster etc. However independently of all these principles, such exercise is to be nipped in the bud on the doctrine of public policy. It is against public policy to permit a person to seek reversal of state of affairs continuing for scores of years. A certain but some what erroneous state of affairs is better than almost correct but uncertain state of affairs. To maintain state of affairs continuing since very long which may have some elements of inaccuracy is better than to thoroughly analyse the inaccuracy after expiry of long time since inception of the said affairs and reverse the same after thorough discussion of attending circumstances at the time of start of said state of affairs.

Revenue entries in respect of agricultural lands have got great value. A meticulous procedure has been prescribed for recording, correcting and maintaining the same under U.P Land Revenue Act 1901 and Land Record Manual. Of course it is true that revenue entries do not confer title, however, short of that, revenue entries are most important evidence in respect of rights in respect of agricultural lands and possession thereof. These entries can not be equated with entries for the purposes of house tax etc. under Municipalities Act (or Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam) in respect of buildings.

If some one wants to purchase agricultural land, he checks the right of vendor from revenue records. If some one wants to take loan from Bank etc by mortgaging his agricultural property, the lender asks for only extracts from revenue records. Injunction suit in Civil Court is maintainable in respect of agricultural land on the basis of revenue entries.

I accordingly find that judgment and order passed by the revisional court is patently erroneous in law.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the revisional court is set-aside.

It is also clarified that judgment and order passed by S.O.C is not correct and is based upon misconception of judgment of C.O. Judgment and order passed by the C.O is approved.




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.