Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Vishudeo vs Pradeshi on 20 August, 2014
èC 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8069 OF 2014
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE EPTITION (CIVIL) NO. 18040 OF 2012)
VISHUDEO AND ORS ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRADESHI AND ORS ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the High Court o f Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 651 of 1977 whereby the Revisional Order dated 10.02.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 48/76 has been set aside and the findings on adverse possession in favour of Respondent No. 4 in the said proceedings, i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, have been reversed.
We have heard learned counsels for the parties. The High Court in the impugned order had clearly and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by categorically recorded that the predecessor-in- Madhu Bala Date: 2014.08.23 10:37:36 IST interest of the appellants i.e. Badri had no interest in Reason:
2
the land in question prior to 1360 Fasli. In 1360 Fasli also the name of Dulham, the grand father of the respondents(herein) was recorded in the Revenue Records. But in the said Fasli Badri got his name mutated on the strength of an order passed by the Supervisor, Kanungo. The High Court has held that the said order of the Supervisor, Kanungo was not available on record and it was never produced; hence there was no basis for entry of the name of Badri. On the said facts, the High Court came to the conclusion that Badri’s possession was based on an illegal entry in the Revenue Records and, therefore, his possession was illegal.
Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants does not question the said finding but has urged that even if the same is to be accepted, the status of Badri would be that of a person in illegal possession to whom the provisions of Sections 209 and 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 would be applicable. The suit contemplated under Section 210 by a bhumidhar, not having been brought within the stipulated period of twelve years, it is claimed that the rights of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents stood extinguished and by virtue of the provisions of 3 Section 210, as it then existed, the status of Sirdar has to be accorded to Badri by operation of law.
On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, learned senior counsel for the respondents has urged that the claim of Badri was on the basis of an arrangement made by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents i.e. Dulham. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the copy of the extract of the Khatuni for twelve years period commencing 1360 Fasli and ending 1372 Fasli pertaining to Village Ram Nagar, Tappa Kathara, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Gorakhpur, wherein it is categorically recorded that by order of the Supervisor, Kanungo, the name of Dulham was expunged from the Khasra mentioned therein on the basis of a registered agreement. In this connection, the finding of the Assistant Settlement officer, Consolidation, recorded in the Order dated 24.10.1976 has been referred to by the learned counsel to point out that the said registered agreement had never been produced. On the said basis, learned counsel has argued that when Badri had come before the Court with a specific claim which was found not to have been established by the materials on record it is not open for him to take a stand in the light of 4 the provisions of Sections 209 and 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. In other words, learned counsel contends that the appellants cannot be allowed to shift their stand according to the convenience once their predecessor-in-interest has been found to be in illegal possession.
In the present case, the basis of possession of Badri i.e. the mutation entry in Fasli 2360 made on the strength of the Order of the Supervisor Kanungo was found by the High Court to be forged and not existent and that the same was not produced before any of the authorities under the Act. The agreement by which Sirdari rights were allegedly conferred by Dulham in favour of Badri was also not produced. In any case, as a Sirdar, Dulham could not have conferred any rights in respect of the land in favour of Badri under the provisions of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. The possession of Badri without a semblance of any legal right cannot form the basis of a claim under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 which essentially engrafts the principle of adverse possession. In this regard it must be noticed that the claim of Badri was on the basis of the mutation entry and not on the 5 strength of his length of possession as now sought to be canvassed before us.
Viewed thus, we find that the findings of the High Court with regard to the mutation entry in the name of Badri is crucial to the issue. The said finding is essentially a finding of fact, and the High Court has elaborately considered the matter. The same was not even contested on behalf of the appellants before us. In any event we will have no occasion to go into the said finding of fact. If that be so, on the view we have taken with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Sections 209 and 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 to the present case, this appeal has to fail. It is accordingly, dismissed however without any order as to cost.
........................J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
NEW DELHI .........................J.
20TH AUGUST, 2014 [R.K. AGRAWAL]
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.11 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 18040/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/04/2012 in CMWP No. 651/1977 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) VISHUDEO AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS PRADESHI AND ORS Respondent(s) Date : 20/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Avnish Singh,Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair ,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mishra,Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee,Adv. M/s Anuradha & Associates ,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)