S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) List has been revised. No one is present for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A.N. Bhargawa is present.
(2.) Challenge in this. petition is the jdugment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.5.75 by which revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. On examination of the matter is*appears that mention of the fact in details is not at all required and thus matter in brief is being mentioned.
(3.) Petitioner predecessor appears to have been recorded in the basic year record over the land in dispute. Claim of the contesting opposite party was based on the basis of a compromise decree and also on the basis of the adverse possession. The judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation indicates that respondent has not been able to establish his rights in respect to plot Nos. 630/2, 637/2 and 389/2 as it was not covered by the compromise. So far other plots i.e. Plot Nos. 784, 380, 463 and 637 are concerned claim of the opposite party appears to have been accepted on the basis of the adverse possession. Deputy Director of Consolidation after making analysis have given finding that the opposite party has not been able to establish his possession over the land which was covered by the compromise but has carved out case that after compromise parties appear to have shifted their possession over different plots according to their convenience. There is finding by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that claim of the opposite parties about possession over the land is not acceptable in view of his own statement but it has been held that as contention of the petitioners are also not acceptable and therefore the conclusion has been arrived at that the respondent has been able to prove his possession over the land. The claim have been accepted on the basis of adverse possession. Needless to say for giving rights on the basis of adverse possession the party is to prove that he has been in continuous possession for more than statutory period and the entry in that respect has to be proved to be in accordance with law. Examination of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation makes it clear that neither there is any discussion in this respect not there is any finding on the basis of which confirmation of the rights of the respondent on the basis of the adverse possession can be accepted and thus tire Court feels that the Deputy Director of Consolidation have not properly attended the matter for giving rights on the basis of the adverse possession. Required finding will have to be recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;