Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 57809 of 2015 Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Pandey,Kamini Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhola Nath Yadav,Kamlesh Ratan Yadav,Manish Kumar Jain
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Ms. Kamini Pandey, the counsel the petitioner and Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, the counsel for respondent no. 5 and his heirs.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 3.6.1995, 7.3.2003 and 28.5.2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respectively whereby the claim of the predecessor of the petitioner registered under Section 9- A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer.
The proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 were registered by the predecessor of the petitioner claiming to be recorded as a Bhumidhar of the disputed plots on the basis of possession. However, the petitioner could not prove his possession through any oral evidence and there is no documentary evidence on record showing that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed plots. The property was not the ancestral property of the petitioner and, therefore, there was no devolution of any interest by succession in favour of the petitioner in relation to the disputed plots. Consequently, the consolidation authorities rejected the claim of the predecessor of the petitioner. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the consolidation authorities have taken note of the fact that the petitioner or his predecessor were never recorded in possession in any revenue record. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that his possession was recorded in C.H. Form 2-A and, therefore, the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities is contrary to records. Form C.H. 2-A is prepared during the consolidation operations. The claim of the petitioner was apparently based on adverse possession which required the petitioner to prove continuous and uninterrupted possession for the prescribed period which could not be proved by the entry in Form C.H. - 2A.
The findings recorded by the courts below in their orders dated 3.6.1995, 7.3.2003 and 28.5.2015 are concurrent findings of fact and the counsel for the petitioner was not able to show any perversity in the aforesaid findings. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hasan Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1992 Supp (2) SCC 70 and Muneshwar (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Raja Mohammad Khan & Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 582, no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer had mechanically relied on the order passed in proceedings registered under Sections 33 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act to reject the claim of the petitioner and to record a finding that the predecessor of the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed plots.
There is no illegality in the aforesaid approach by the Consolidation Officer in as much as proceedings under Sections 33 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act are decided on the basis of possession and in view of the judgments of this Court in Buddhu Vs. Board of Revenue (2003) 95 RD 543 and Algoo & Ors. Vs. Director of Consolidation & Ors. (1979) RD 150, the findings recorded in the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are relevant and material evidence in title proceedings based on possession.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Satyam