CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 08 AHC CK 0188

Hargen vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 4 August 2011 · Citation: (2011) 6 AWC 6469 : (2011) 114 RD 223

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CM.W.P. No. 33458 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 356 words

A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri R.P. Dubey.

2.

Sri Dubey submits that the issue relating to the bar of section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, could not have been taken into consideration by the Board of Revenue and that even otherwise the petitioner has perfected his title by virtue of his long standing possession since 1939 on the basis of a lease He contends that the bar of section 49 would not operate as the consolidation authorities have no right to adjudicate any controversy relating to land recorded as Banjar and for that he relies on two decisions of this Court in the case of Ramphal and Others v. Champat Singh and Others 1985 RD 153 and the decision in the case of Bhillar and Others Vs. Deputy Director Consolidation and Others, .

3.

Having heard Sri Dubey learned Counsel for the petitioner what transpires from the facts on record is that the petitioner is claiming his tenancy rights on the basis of an alleged lease of 1939. The claim, therefore, is founded on long standing possession of a lease. This is a claim which squarely falls for adjudication of such rights within the provisions of the UP. C.H. Act, 1953, namely, section 4 read with section 5 and section 9 (A-2) thereof.

4.

The contention of the petitioner is that since the land is recorded as Banjar, and therefore the consolidation authorities would not have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the objection to be entertained by the consolidation authorities is to be based on the nature of the rights claimed and not on the nature of the recorded entry. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore it unsustainable.

5.

In the opinion of the Court, the bar of section 49 would squarely apply in the instant case and the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue cannot be interfered with. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore would not be applicable as explained above.

6.

The writ petition is dismissed.