AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhir Narain, J.—The Petitioners have sought writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.10.1992, passed by Respondent No. 2 setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.3.1992, and the order dated 24.9.1993 passed by Respondent No. 1 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.
The facts of the case in brief are that during consolidation proceedings, in the basic year Khatauni the name of Ranga Singh, Respondent No. 3 and Mangal Singh, fattier of Respondent No. 4 was recorded in Khata No. 13 and in Khata No. 14 the name of Mangal Singh was recorded. In these two Khatas the name of Jagtar Singh was recorded in Class L. Jagtar Singh filed objection claiming bhumidhari rights on the basis of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection on 27.3.1992 on the finding that Jagtar Singh was in possession of the land in question for more than 12 years. Respondent No. 3 filed appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. Respondent No. 2 allowed the appeal on 30.10.1992 and reversed the finding of the Consolidation Officer. Jagtar Singh filed revision against the said order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision by order dated 24.9.1993. The Petitioners, as heirs of Jagtar Singh, have filed the present writ petition.
The sole question is as to whether Jagtar Singh had acquired rights in the land in dispute by adverse possession against the recorded tenure-holders. Respondent No. 2 has recorded finding that Jagtar Singh failed to establish that he acquired rights by adverse possession. Jagtar Singh was brother-in-law of Respondent No. 3 and nephew of Respondent No. 4. The entries in the Khasras were not reliable as it was not shown that P. A. 10 was issued and by whose orders the entries were made. The matter was re-examined by Respondent No. 1. The view taken by Respondent No. 2 has been affirmed.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the findings recorded by Respondents No. 1 and 2. It is urged that it was not necessary to lead any evidence to prove that P. A. 10 was issued. There is a presumption that the entries were correctly made. It is necessary to examine relevant provisions of the U.P. Land Records as applicable at the time of making the entries in question.
Para A-60 of the U.P. Land Records Manual provides that the Khasra shall be prepared in Form P-3 given thereunder. Para A-80 provides that the Lekhpal while on partal in the village shall keep with him a book or memorandum of facts of possession in cases of the Chapter mentioned in Para A-72 (ii) and A-72 (iii). He shall make inquiries regarding nature of the land in dispute and he shall at the same time record the number of the plots. Para A-8D provides that after completing the Kharif or Rabi or said partal of a village each page of the memorandum in Form P.A. 24 shall be signed by the Lekhpal. Para A-81A provides that the Lekhpal shall inform the Chairman, the Land Management Committee and all tenure-holders of the village including the persons concerned with the entries made in the memorandum delivered to the Supervisor Kanungo. Para A-102C provides that the entries shall be valid if they are made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Records Manual.
It is clear from Para A-102C of the Land Records Manual that the entries will have no evidentiary value if they are not made in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual. There is presumption of correctness of the entries provided it is made in accordance with the relevant provision of Land Records Manual and secondly, in case where a person is claiming adverse possession against the recorded tenure-holder and he denies that he had not received any P.A. 10 or he had no knowledge of the entries made in the revenue records, the burden of proof is further upon the person claiming adverse possession to prove that the tenure-holder was duly given notice in prescribed Form P.A. 10. Para A-81 itself provides that the notice will be given by the Lekhpal and he will obtain the signature of the Chairman, Land Management Committee as well as from the recorded tenure-holder. It is also otherwise necessary to be provided by the person claiming adverse possession. The law of adverse possession contemplates that there is not only continuity of possession as against the true owner but also that such person had full knowledge that the person in possession was claiming a title and possession hostile to the true owner. If a person comes in possession of the land of another person, he cannot establish his title by adverse possession unless it is further proved by him that the tenure-holder had knowledge of such adverse possession.
In Jamuna Prasad Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, , this Court repelled the contention that the burden of proof was upon the person who challenges the correctness of the entries. It was observed:
Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that there was a presumption of correctness about the entries in the revenue records and the onus lay upon the Respondent to prove that the entries showing the Petitioner''s possession had not been in accordance with law. This contention is untenable Firstly, it is not possible for a party to prove a negative fact. Secondly, the question as to whether the notice in Form P.A. 10 was issued and served upon the Petitioner also is a fact which was within his exclusive knowledge.
Petitioner''s contention that the burden lay on the Respondents to disprove the authenticity and destroy the probative value of the entry of possession cannot be accepted. In my opinion, where possession is asserted by a party who relies mainly on the entry of adverse possession in his favour and such possession is denied by the recorded tenure-holder, the burden is on the former to establish that the entries in regard to his possession was made in accordance with law.
Similar view was expressed by this Court in Ganga Ram and Ors. v. D.D.C. and Ors. 1982 RD 1, wherein it was observed that the person who alleges that P.A. 10 was prepared and served upon the recorded tenure-holder has to prove that fact. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the decision of the Board of Revenue in Ranvir Singh v. Smt. Satyawati 1990 RD 435, wherein the Board of Revenue distinguished the case of this Court in the case of Jamuna Prasad (supra). It was held therein that there was presumption with regard to the correctness of public document and correctness of the entries made in the annual register when the papers relating to compliance of Para 80-A and A-81 of the Land Records Manual is proved on evidence available on the record and it is proved that P.A. 10 was issued, its service is to be presumed on the recorded tenure-holder. It was, on the facts of that case, found that adverse possession was proved. The Board of Revenue could not have taken a contrary view already expressed by the Court in the case of Jamuna Prasad (supra).
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further placed reliance upon a decision of Board of Revenue in Hazari v. Mathura 1992 RD 79, wherein it was held that where a person being not a rank trespasser is in continuous possession to the full knowledge of the recorded tenure-holder, issuance of P.A. 10 is not necessary. This decision is not an authority on the question that where the person is claiming adverse possession and relies upon the recorded entries, he is not to establish that the entries were made in accordance with law.
The Petitioners led evidence to prove adverse possession. They relied upon the Khatauni 1375-1377 F and also twelve years Khasra, 1386-1397 F. Surjan Singh, father of the Petitioners also tendered oral evidence. Khatauni 1375 F indicated that Respondent No. 3 Mangal Singh, father of Respondent No. 4 was recorded as sirdar of the land in dispute. In column No. 9 there is entry that Jagtar Singh is in possession and has been shown in column No. 9 in respect of plot No. 150. This entry is alleged to have been made by the Supervisor Kanungo. The Petitioners did not lead any evidence to show that before making such entry the Supervisor Kanungo had issued any notice to the recorded tenure-holder. The Petitioner did not file any copy of Khasra which could show that in the remarks column, the date of the Partal and the date of issuance of P.A. 10 was made. The diary of the Lekhpal was also not summoned. The Petitioner was relying upon these entries to prove his adverse possession. The person who is recorded as tenure-holder is otherwise entitled to notice when an authority makes an entry regarding possession against him, which in effect creates a right in favour of another person in respect of the land for which the entry is made in the Khasra. Secondly, Respondent No. 2 has believed the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the Respondents No. 3 and 4 that Jagtar Singh was related to them. Respondent No. 3 is brother-in-law of Jagtar Singh and Respondent No. 4 is his nephew. The findings recorded by the Respondents are not illegal.
There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismisses.