MUBARAK HUSSAIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-19
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 05,2012

Mubarak Hussain and Another Appellant
VERSUS
The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S. Verma, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11 -1 -1994 and 13 -5 -1993 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation respectively. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioners, are that a Patta was allotted to Bhullan, father of the petitioners, by the Collector under the Government Grants Act. Copy of the Patta and Khatauni have been annexed by the petitioners as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. The land in dispute pertains to plot No. 360/3, area 0.94 Bigha, plot No. 366/2, 1 Bigha and plot No. 361/3 area 0.57 Bigha, situated at village Daduwala, Tehsil Kashipur, district Nainital.
(2.) THE petitioners filed objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming that the names of the petitioners be recorded in place of their father Bhullan, since he had died. The respondent No. 3 filed objection on the ground that the land in question has been purchased and an unregistered agreement to sale was executed by Sri Bhullan in favour of the mother of respondent No. 3, Smt. Vero wife of Gurunam Singh. The respondent No. 3 Sewa Singh claimed his adverse possession on the basis of unregistered agreement for sale through his mother since she had paid Rs. 8,000/ - for purchase of the land in question. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of the objection filed by the parties, framed following Issues: - 1. Who legally inherits land of Khata No. 154? 2. Whether Sewa Singh has perfected his right on the basis of adverse possession? If so, its effect?
(3.) AFTER perusing the evidence adduced by the parties, the objection of respondent No. 3 was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that on the basis of receipt of irrigation, which has been filed by Sewa Singh, pertains of his own Bhumidhari land and on the basis of receipt, the possession cannot be presumed adverse against the petitioners, who are legal heirs of late Bhullan. Learned Consolidation Officer also held that Sewa Singh failed to prove his adverse possession continuously for the last preceding 12 years. Ultimately, by order dated 17 -1 -1993, the Consolidation Officer directed that the name of deceased Bhullan be replaced by his legal heirs over Khata No. 154 and the claim of the respondent No. 3 Sewa Singh was rejected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.