AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Dharampal Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.S.Kushwaha learned counsel for the contesting opposite party no.2.
(2.) THIS petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H.Act. The claim is founded on the basis of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation after assessing the evidence issued a declaration in favour of the petitioner. The same has been reversed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the entry of adverse possession in Column 9 is not a valid entry and is unsupported in law. The Deputy Director of Consolidation came to the conclusion that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has erred in law in proceeding to record findings contrary to the provisions of Land Record Manual and the settled legal position. Sri Dharampal Singh learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the oral evidence categorically indicates that the petitioners were in adverse possession over the land in dispute therefore the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation did not suffer from any infirmity. This long standing possession could not have been over looked by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) SRI Kushwaha learned counsel for the contesting respondent on the other hand contends that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the entries beginning from 1368 F cannot be taken into account as they are not lawful entries and the alleged adverse possession on the basis of the said entries cannot be claimed as the basis of title by the petitioner. Reference may be had to the decision in the case of Bachan Vs. Kankar reported in 1972 RD 219.;