Mahadeo vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh

R.M. Sahai, J.—In the basic year records prepared under Consolidation of Holdings Act opposite parties were entered as tenants-in-chief and the Petitioner was shown in possession in Col. 9 of the Khatauni. He filed an objection and claimed to have acquired rights u/s 210 by remaining in possession since 136S F. The claim was denied by the opposite parties but the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation found that Petitioner was in possession over the land in dispute atleast since 1366 F. In revision the orders were set aside. The Deputy Director found that in a suit filed u/s 209 of UP ZA and LR Act between Nathai, opposite party, and Wajid Ali Khan a compromise was arrived and it was agreed that the property shall be entered half and halt in name of both. In pursuance of this compromise a Commissioner was appointed from the court and he did the measurements etc. on 31-3-59. From it the Deputy Director inferred that possession of the Petitioner was not proved otherwise he would have objected to it.

It is this finding of the Deputy Director that is assailed as being based on no evidence. It is urged that the compromise or the Commissioner''s demarcation on 31-3-59 were not relevant to decide the question of Petitioners adverse possession. The submission appears to be well founded. It is admitted that Petitioner was not a party in the suit. The compromise decree or the demarcation by the Commissioner therefore had no effect on his rights. The Deputy Director could not on Commissioner''s report record a finding that the entry in Petitioner''s favour was contrary to the provisions of law. It had not been found that the entries were not in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual. Prima facie they carry a presumption of correctness. It could not be deemed to have been rebutted only because the Commissioner made measurements at the spot. The Deputy Director has not decided the question of adverse possession on evidence but only because of the compromise decree and the measurement done on 31st March, 59. It would be expedient, therefore, to direct him to decide the revision afresh on evidence.

In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director is quashed. He is directed to decide the revision afresh on evidence. The parties shall bear their own costs.