ISRAIL S/O ISMAIL KHAN Vs. COLLECTOR/DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION NAINITAL AND ORS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-125
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 13,2013

Israil S/O Ismail Khan Appellant
VERSUS
Collector/District Deputy Director Of Consolidation Nainital And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.03.1992 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and the order dated 3.8.1990 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation (Annexure no.2 to the writ petition).
(2.) Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition, according to the petitioner are, that Sri Ismail Khan, father of the petitioner, was recorded as tenure holder in the revenue record in the basic year with regard to land in dispute of Khata no.27 of Village Pirojpur, Pargana Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha and since then he is in possession over the plots in dispute. It is alleged that respondent no.3 has no right or interest in the land in dispute and his name has wrongly been entered in the revenue record in Varg 7. Respondent no.3 also claimed his possession over the plots in dispute on the basis of alleged patta dated 16.11.1953 purported to have been executed by the father of the petitioner, which is illegal.
(3.) During the consolidation proceedings, respondent no.3 Late Sri Indra Pal Singh filed objection u/s 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming his possession over the plots in dispute on the basis of patta which is said to have been executed by the father of the petitioner in his favour and also on the basis of adverse possession and prayed to expunge the entry of the petitioner from the revenue record. The petitioner filed reply to the objection. Before the consolidation officer, both the parties adduced their evidence. Thereafter, necessary issues were framed by the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer did not find favour to the respondent no.3 and held that since the possession was with consent therefore no rights on the basis of adverse possession should be given to the respondent no.3 and accordingly rejected the objections vide order dated 6.4.1989. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no.3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (for short, S.O.C.), who after hearing the parties and on the basis of adverse possession, held the adverse possession of Late Sri Indra Pal Singh and allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Consolidation Officer by judgment and order dated 3.8.1990. Aggrieved by the order of S.O.C. dated 3.8.1990, the petitioner preferred a revision u/s 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, vide order dated 26.3.1992, learned Deputy Director of Consolidation (for short, D.D.C.) affirmed the finding of the appellate court. Further aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.;


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