Allahabad High Court
Rishipal Singh vs D.D.C. Hardoi And Others on 7 February, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7922 Reserved Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1861 of 1989 Petitioner :- Rishipal Singh Respondent :- D.D.C. Hardoi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- T.N. Gupta,J.B.S.Rathore,Sarvesh Kumar Shukla,Saurabh Yadav,Yogendra Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikas Shukla Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has put in appearance to argue the case on behalf of the private-respondents.
2. Under challenge are the three orders passed by the consolidation courts whereby the claim of the petitioner claiming rights in respect of Khata No.6, 7 and 8, situate in village Aalapur, Pargana Mallawan, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi, was rejected.
3. The disputed plots of Khata Nos.7 and 8 was recorded in the name of Raj Bahadur Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh and Smt. Shiv Kumari whereas the plots comprising of Khata No.6 was recorded in the name of Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Chootka in the basic year Khatauni.
4. Upon commencement of consolidation operations, Raj Bahadur Singh had filed objections stating that Smt. Chhotka did not have any share in Khata No.6 and her name was incorrectly recorded. Raj Bahadur Singh claimed his rights in the disputed Khata on the basis of adverse possession. As per Raj Bahadur Singh, he had possession of 1/4th share of the property belonging to Smt. Chhotka while he had half share in Khata No.6 and the other two persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sheo Kumar had 1/4th share.
5. Another set of objections were filed by Smt. Chhotka wherein she claimed rights in all the three Khatas i.e. 6, 7 and 8 on the ground that the land of the aforesaid Khatas was ancestral and she had 1/4th share in all the Khatas. She further stated that she had acquired 1/4th share of Raj Bahadur Singh in all the Khatas in an auction sale which was confirmed in her favour in 1954. She further stated that she had also parted with 1/8th share in the aforesaid Khata in favour of Raj Bahadur Singh.
6. A family pedigree was also set up which indicated that the common ancestor of the parties was one Jagat Singh who was survived by his two sons Roop Singh and Indal Singh.
7. In the branch of Roop Singh, his two sons, namely, Chandrika Singh and Hardev Singh were present and Raj Bahadur Singh was son of Chandrika Singh and he belonged to the branch of Roop Singh. Whereas Smt. Chhotka belonged to the branch of Hardev Singh.
8. Smt. Shiv Kumari and Lal Bahadur Singh, they belonged to the branch of Indal Singh. While there were conflicting claims raised by Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Chhotka, another person, namely, Sumer Singh also moved objections seeking mutation in respect of half share of Smt. Shiv Kumari in Khata No.7 on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed by Lal Bahadur Singh and Smt. Shiv Kumari in his favour.
9. Though separate objections were filed by four persons which came to be rejected by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 04.09.1968 but primarily the dispute in question thereafter was fiercely contested between Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Chhotka.
10. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 04.09.1968, two appeals came to be filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation both by Raj Bahadur Singh in respect of the dispute in respect of Khatas no.6, 7 and 8. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation also after hearing the parties did not find favour with the claim set up by Raj Bahadur Singh and consequently both the appeals were dismissed by means of order dated 16.06.1969.
11. This order was further challenged in a revision which was also dismissed by means of order dated 31.08.1970. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No.1631 of 1970 and it came to be allowed on 30.08.1976. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation where the revision was restored to its original number and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to decide the revision afresh after considering several pleas which had been raised by the parties.
12. After remand the Deputy Director of Consolidation, once again after hearing the parties by means of its order dated 30.11.1988 dismissed the revision which is now assailed before this Court by means of the instant writ petition.
13. Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner had raised two basic objections which have not been appropriately dealt by the consolidation authorities.
14. It is urged that it was not disputed between the parties that Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Chhotka belonged to the same branch descending from their common ancestor Roop Singh. Once the pedigree was not disputed, it was not open for the three consolidation courts to have ignored or rejected the claim set up by the petitioner.
15. It was also urged that apparently the dispute related to Khatas No.7 and 8 while the land of Khatas No.7 and 8 were recorded in the name of Raj Bahadur Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh and Smt. Shiv Kumari. The land of Khata No.6 was entered in the name of Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Chhotka. It was the case of the petitioner that the name of Raj Bahadur Singh was in all the three Khatas. The name of Smt. Chhotka recorded in Khata No.6 was erroneous; inasmuch as Smt. Chhotka had no title in the land in dispute.
16. It was also stated that Smt. Chhotka had been ousted from the property in question and this point was built on the premise that Smt. Chhotka was not in possession and on the basis of adverse possession, the petitioner had perfected his rights to the exclusion of Smt. Chhotka, therefore, she had no right in the property in question.
17. It was further urged that in so far as the other two Khatas are concerned i.e. Khatas No.7 and 8, Smt. Chhotka could not be granted any co-tenancy rights in the said two Khatas. It is urged that the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have committed an error in granting rights to Smt. Chhotka in all the three disputed Khatas and thus the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law as they do not consider or take notice of the contention of the petitioner including voluminous documentary evidence filed by the petitioner before the consolidation authorities, hence the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law.
18. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and from the perusal of the material on record, first and foremost it will be relevant to examine the plea of adverse possession as raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The first point of contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that he had perfected his rights in so far as the right of Smt. Chhotka is concerned and as she was neither residing or had possession of the disputed Khatas and the petitioner being in possession, he was entitled to claim rights on the property. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have filed several documents including irrigation receipts to amplify that he was in possession to the exclusion of Smt. Chhotka and had perfected his rights by adverse possession.
19. This plea did not find favour with the consolidation courts on the premise that admittedly as per the family tree both Smt. Chhotka and Raj Bahadur Singh belonged to the same branch having a common ancestor Roop Singh. Thus, the parties being co-owners of the disputed khata it was held that any right by one co-sharer is for the benefit of the other and it cannot be said that one ousted the other for perfecting rights by adverse possession.
20. Even though, this single premise for negativing a plea of adverse possession may not be sufficient as law of adverse possession in so far as agricultural properties covered by the revenue laws operates a little differently. This Court in Bhagwati Deen v. Sheetladin; 2022 SCC OnLine All 349, had the occasion to consider the applicability of law of adverse possession relating to agricultural properties and the same was followed by this Court in Sohan Lal vs. Distt. D.D.C. Hardoi and Ors. MANU/UP/4198/2022 and the relevant portion as considered by this Court in para-11 of Sohan Lal (supra) is being reproduced hereinafter:-
11. Having taken note of the aforesaid as well as considering the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwati Deen (supra), wherein a detailed discussions has been made on the plea of adverse possession by referring to other decisions of this Court and of the Apex Court. Para-28 of the said report reads as under:-
"28. Lately, this Court also had the occasion to consider the aforesaid issue of adverse possession in the case of Chit Bahal Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, decided on 29.04.2022 and by relying upon the decision of Babu Ali v. D.D.C. (supra) the plea of adverse possession was rejected. The relevant paras explaining the law and the preparation of entries and what ingredients have to be met are being extracted hereinafter:-
"11. The para-89-A, 89-B and 102-B of the Land Records Manual (here-in-after referred as "the manual'), relevant for the purpose, are extracted below:--
"89-A. List of changes.-After each Kharif and rabi portal of a village the Lekhpal shall prepare in triplicate a consolidated list of new and modified entries in the Khasra in the following form:
Form No. P-10 Khasra No. of Plot Area Details of entry in the last year Details of entry made in the current year Verification report by the Revenue Inspector Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6
(ii) The Lekhpal shall fill in the first four Columns and hand over a copy of the list to the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. He shall also prepare extract from the list and issue to the person or persons concerned recorded in Columns 3 and 4 to their heirs, if the person or persons concerned have died, obtaining their signature in the copy of the list retained by him. Another copy shall be sent to the Revenue Inspector.
(iii) The Revenue Inspector shall ensure at the time of his partial of the village the extract have been issued in all the cases and signatures obtained of the recipients.
89-B. Report of changes.- The copy of the list with the Lekhpal containing the signatures of the recipients of the extracts shall be attached to the Khasra concerned and filed with the Registrar (Revenue Inspector) alongwith it on or before 31st July, of the following year (sub-paragraph (iv) of the paragraph 60).
102-B. Entry of possession (Column 22) (Remarks column).- (1) The Lekhpal shall while recording the fact of possession in the remarks Column of the Khasra, write on the same day the fact of possession with the name of the person in possession in his diary also, and the date and the serial number of the dairy in the remarks Column of the Khasra against the entry concerned.
(2) As the list of changes in Form p-10 is prepared after the completion of the patal of village, the serial number of the list of changes shall be noted in red ink below the entry concerned in the remarks column of the Khasra in order to ensure that all such entries have been brought on the list.
(3) If the Lekhpal fails to comply with any of the provisions contained in paragraph 89-A, the entry in the remarks Column of the Khasra will not be deemed to have been made in the discharge of his official duty."
12. Reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that if any entry is made in PA-10, the same shall be communicated to the person or persons concerned recorded in columns 3 and 4 or their heirs and obtain their signatures. Records on being submitted to the Revenue Inspector, he shall ensure at the time of Padtal i.e. verification of the village that it has been issued in all the cases and the signatures obtained by the recipients. Therefore, in case, any entry made on the basis of adverse possession the same was to be communicated to the person concerned and the person claiming is required to prove that it was in accordance with the manual and as to what was nature of possession and when it started in the knowledge of the tenant and the possession was continuous and how long it continued.
13. This Court considered this issue in the case of Mohd. Raza v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1997 RD 276 and held that the entries in the revenue papers not prepared by following the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual and PA-10 notice was not served on the main tenant, such entries are of no evidentiary value and would not confer any right.
14. This court, in the case of Gurumukh Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Nainital, (1997) 80 RD 276, has also held that the entries will have no evidentiary value if they are not in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual and the burden to prove is on the person who is asserting the possession on the basis of adverse possession. Relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 are extracted below:--
"6. It is clear from Para A-102C of the Land Records Manual that the entries will have no evidentiary value if they are not made in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual. There is presumption of correctness of the entries provided it is made in accordance with the relevant provision of Land Records Manual and secondly, in case where a person is claiming adverse possession against the recorded tenure-holder and he denies that he had not received any P.A. 10 or he had no knowledge of the entries made in the revenue records, the burden of proof is further upon the person claiming adverse possession to prove that the tenure-holder was duly given notice in prescribed Form P.A. 10. Para A-81 itself provides that the notice will be given by the Lekhpal and he will obtain the signature of the Chairman, Land Management Committee as well as from the recorded tenure-holder. It is also otherwise necessary to be provided by the person claiming adverse possession. The law of adverse possession contemplates that there is not only continuity of possession as against the true owner but also that such person had full knowledge that the person in possession was claiming a title and possession hostile to the true owner. If a person comes in possession of the land of another person, he cannot establish his title by adverse possession unless it is further proved by him that the tenure-holder had knowledge of such adverse possession.
7. In Jamuna Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra, this Court repelled the contention that the burden of proof was upon the person who challenges the correctness of the entries. It was observed:
"Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that there was a presumption of correctness about the entries in the revenue records and the onus lay upon the Respondent to prove that the entries showing the Petitioner's possession had not been in accordance with law. This contention is untenable Firstly, it is not possible for a party to prove a negative fact. Secondly, the question as to whether the notice in Form P.A. 10 was issued and served upon the Petitioner also is a fact which was within his exclusive knowledge."
"Petitioner's contention that the burden lay on the Respondents to disprove the authenticity and destroy the probative value of the entry of possession cannot be accepted. In my opinion, where possession is asserted by a party who relies mainly on the entry of adverse possession in his favour and such possession is denied by the recorded tenure-holder, the burden is on the former to establish that the entries in regard to his possession was made in accordance with law."
15. This Court, in the case of Sadhu Saran v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, (2003) 94 RD 535, has held that it is well settled in law that the illegal entry does not confer title. Therefore even if the entry has been made, it does not confer right title or interest if it is not in accordance with law and the prescribed procedure. This Court and the counsel for the parties also could not get the same in the Lekhpal diary. The provision of PA-24 has come vide notification dated 03.07.1965, therefore it is also of no assistance because entry could not have been made on the basis of PA-24 in Khatauni of 1373 fasli and it is also without number and year.
16. This Court, in the case of Putti v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Bahraich, (2007) 2 All LJ 43, has held that the court should be slow to declare the right on the basis adverse possession otherwise it may become a weapon in the hands of mighty persons to acquire the property of the weaker sections of society. It has further held that there shall not be presumption of continuous possession to declare right and title on the basis of adverse possession unless year to year entries made in accordance with law in the Khasra or Khatauni and proved by cogent and trustworthy evidence, the burden to prove which is on the person who claims Sirdari or Bhumidhari rights on the basis of adverse possession. Relevant paragraph-41 is extracted below:--
"41. Right to claim title on the basis of adverse possession is a legacy of British law. Courts should be slow to declare right on the basis of adverse possession. In case liberal approach is adopted to extend right and title on the basis of adverse possession then it may become a weapon in the hands of mighty persons to acquire the property of the weaker sections of the society. Accordingly, it shall always be incumbent upon the Courts to do close scrutiny of the evidence and material on record within the four corners of law as settled by Apex Court, discussed herein above. Even little reasonable doubt on the evidence relied upon by a party to claim right and title on the basis of adverse possession may be sufficient to reject such claim under a particular fact and circumstance. There shall not be presumption on continuous possession to declare right and title on the basis of adverse possession unless year to year entries made in accordance to law in the Khasra or Khatauni are proved by cogent and trust worthy evidence. burden of proof of such entries shall lie, as discussed herein above, on the person who claims Sirdari or bhumidhari right on the basis of adverse possession. In the absence of any such proof, presumption shall be in favour of recorded tenure-holder whose name has been recorded in column-1 of the Khatauni."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, 2008 (26) LCD 15, has held that in case of adverse possession, communication to the owner and his hostility towards the possession is must. The relevant paragraphs 19 to 23 are extracted below:--
"19. Thus, there must be intention to dispossess. And it needs to be open and hostile enough to bring the same to the knowledge and plaintiff has an opportunity to object. After all adverse possession right is not a substantive right but a result of the waiving (willful) or omission (negligent or otherwise) of right to defend or care for the integrity of property on the part of the paper owner of the land. Adverse possession statutes, like other statutes of limitation, rest on a public policy that do not promote litigation and aims at the repose of conditions that the parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long enough to indicate their acquiescence.
20. While dealing with the aspect of intention in the Adverse possession law, it is important to understand its nuances from varied angles.
21. Intention implies knowledge on the part of adverse possessor. The case of Saroop Singh v. Banto, (2005) 8 SCC 330 in that context held:
"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak, (2004) 3 SCC 376).
30. Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Mohd Mohd. Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, SCC para 21)"
22. A peaceful, open and continuous possession as engraved in the maxim nec vi, nec clam, nec precario has been noticed by this Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779 in the following terms:
"Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show : (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession"
It is important to appreciate the question of intention as it would have appeared to the paper-owner. The issue is that intention of the adverse user gets communicated to the paper owner of the property. This is where the law gives importance to hostility and openness as pertinent qualities of manner of possession. It follows that the possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice and opportunity to the paper owner."
21. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the instant case, apparently no such exercise was done by either of the parties. Admittedly, this aspect has not been considered by the three consolidation courts but the fact remains that neither the petitioner could bring any material on record to indicate his continuous possession on the basis of records. It is also could not be established that Form P-10 was issued and it was duly served on Smt. Chhotka and despite service, she did not take any action to resume her possession and upon completion of the statutory period the petitioner succeeded in establishing his plea of adverse possession.
22. Since no such evidence was either led before the Consolidation Courts nor placed on record before this Court, in absence thereof the plea cannot be examined. Moreover, the plea of adverse possession cannot be sustained especially when the relations between Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Chhotka as per the family tree was admitted and both of them were co-owners and the possession of one is possession of all the co-owners. Since it has not been indicated as to how and when the petitioner fortified his claim of adverse possession and that his name was duly recorded in column no.9 with red ink hence this Court is not impressed with the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners relating to having ousted Smt. Chhotka. Thus, first plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to adverse possession fails.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that Smt. Chhotka did not have any right in the property and her name was erroneously incorporated which also does not impress this Court for the reason that before the consolidation authorities several documents were filed on behalf of Smt. Chhotka to indicate that the share of Raj Bahadur Singh was put to auction in satisfaction of a decree. The entire share of Raj Bahadur Singh was purchased by Smt. Chhotka in the auction. Thus, she had claimed rights in the other disputed Khata as co-owners.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the alleged auction was invalid and it was not done by the authorities who was authorized to hold the auction in law rather it was done by the Judicial Officer who was not authorized to hold the auction.
25. It has also been urged that this issue was raised by Raj Bahadur Singh in the earlier round of litigation before the Hon'ble High Court wherein the High Court had directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine the said matter in its order dated 30.08.1976.
26. In order to examine the aforesaid plea, it will be relevant to take note of the order passed by the High Court dated 30.08.1976 in Writ Petition No.1631 of 1970 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The controversy in my opinion between the petitioners and the opposite parties lies in a very narrow ambit. It may be mentioned that both the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held the property to be ancestral. That being so it appears that all the surviving members were entitled to their respective shares in the disputed Khatas. The deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded a clear cut finding on this aspect of the matter. The result has been that it is not clear from him orders to how Raj Bahadur Singh came in exclusive ownership of Khata No.8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties could not place anything from the judgment to convince me that Raj Bahadur Singh had acquired Khata No.8 in his own rights. That being so, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be said to be legal, just and proper and I find that it suffers from manifest error inasmuch as no reasons whatsoever have been assigned to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded with respect to the nature of the property by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).
It was next argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that so far as the other findings are concerned, it should be held that the auction sale made in favour of Smt. Chhotka by the Judicial Officer was nullity in the eyes of law as it was without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions and hence could not be given effect to. I am not expressing any opinion although a finding has been recorded to this effect by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There are for and against Supreme Court decisions and it will be open to the parties to recanvass the issue on this aspect of the matter. I deliberately refrain myself from making any observations to allow the Deputy Director of Consolidation to act freely and without any impediment in arriving at a judicial decision. Since the matter is being sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he should consider all the arguments that are advance by the parties on all the points involved in the case and decide it in accordance with the settled principles of law and facts on record. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation since cannot be maintained in the eye of alw, deserves to be quashed.
The result is that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. Let certiorari issue accordingly to cancel the original of the same from the records. I further direct that the Deputy Director of Consolidation will restore the revision filed by the opposite parties to its original number and dispose of the dispute in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. Let mandamus issue accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs."
27. On the perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation, it would reveal that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside as the said order did not contain reason sufficient to justify the findings returned and affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
28. Be that as it may, even if this Court examines the aforesaid plea, it would reveal that the basic ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is regarding the auction being irregular. At this stage, it will be pertinent to notice that in the instant writ petition which is engaging the attention of this Court since 1989 more than three decades have lapsed but not a single document has been brought on record by either of the parties and more so the petitioner to indicate as to how the auction was bad. No explanation was given by the counsel for the petitioner that in case if the auction which was held in 1954 was bad, then what prevented the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. However, the same was never done nor it could be shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree which was passed against Raj Bahadur Singh had been modified or set aside by any superior forum which could have an impact on the auction making it bad in the eyes of law.
29. In absence of material before this Court, the aforesaid submission can only be examined on the basis of the material before this Court but as already indicated above, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea. The very fact Raj Bahadur Singh did not assail the auction on the ground that the decree in pursuance whereof it was held is bad. This implies that at least he admits the auction to have taken place and the property was sold out. In case if he found that there was some irregularities but choose not to challenge the said auction, then accordingly he is bound by the same and he cannot now raise this plea of the auction being bad in collateral proceedings before the consolidation courts.
30. The consolidation courts are not empowered to cancel or hold that auction was bad and in light of the above discussions, the consolidation courts were bound by the material before it and since Smt. Chhotka had filed the documentary evidence indicating the decree passed against Raj Bahadur Singh, the auction held and Smt. Chhotka having got the property in auction, in absence of any material to the contrary, the consolidation authorities could not have held otherwise.
31. The record also indicates that Smt. Chhotka on her own had specifically stated that since Raj Bahadur Singh belonged to the same family, hence under societal and family pressure, she surrendered her 1/8th share to Raj Bahadur Singh. Once the contesting respondent Smt. Chhotka admitted that she had given 1/8th share to Raj Bahadur Singh, the fact would remain that the right of Smt. Chhotka could not be disputed and whatever she felt, she gave to Raj Bahadur Singh, hence he cannot turn back to claim that Smt. Chhotka did not have the right and her name was incorrectly recorded in the disputed Khatas.
32. The record indicates that several documents were filed before Consolidation Court and on the said basis the courts have returned findings which are assailed before this Court. In order to show that the findings are bad it was incumbent on the petitioner to show that the documents considered by the Consolidation Courts was not correct and to do so the documents should have been placed before this Court and then demonstrate how they have been misread or incorrectly considered. However, it has not been done and the judgments could not be shown to be erroneous.
33. The findings in the judgments have categorically been upheld by all the three consolidation authorities and despite remand made by the High Court, this issue was once again considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in its order dated 30.11.1988 and these findings could not be shown to be erroneous or perverse which could persuade this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than what has been arrived at by the three consolidation authorities, hence for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Costs are made easy.
Order Date :- February 7th, 2025 ank