Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Bachan & Another vs Kankar & Others on 26 July, 1972

Shahid Khan And Others vs D.D.C. And Others on 23 May, 2011

1.That the entire claim of the contesting respondents is based on fraudulent entries and therefore fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings. Hence, the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which ought to have affirmed, has been wrongly reversed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Bachan & another Vs. Kankar & others, 1972 RD Pg. 219 and the decision in the case of Smt. Sonawati & others Vs. Sri Ram & another, 1968 RD Pg. 151.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A P Sahi - Full Document

Bhagwati Deen vs Sheetladin And Others on 25 May, 2022

5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that if the entry was not correct, it could not be regarded as an entry made according to law at all and the right to take or retain possession of the land could not be determined on the basis of an incorrect entry. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Bachan and another v. Kankar and others, [1973] 1 SCR 727. In that judgment the nature of the entries in Khasra or Khatauni is discussed and it is also discussed as to how this entry should be made. This Court held that entries which are not genuine cannot confer Adhivasi rights. It has been observed that an entry under section 20(b) of the said Act, in order to enable a person to obtain Adhivasi rights, must be an entry under the provisions of law and entries which are not genuine cannot confer Adhivasi rights. In that judgment it has been stated that the High Court was wrong when it held that though the entry was incorrect, it could not be said to be fictitious. That observation, however, has to be understood in the context of what follows, namely, that an entry which is incorrectly introduced into the records by reason of iII- will or hostility is not only shorn of authenticity but also becomes utterly useless without any lawful basis. This judgment, in our view, does not lay down that all incorrect entries are fictitious but only lays down that a wrong entry or incorrect entry which has been made by reason of iII-will or hostility cannot confer any right under section 20(b) of the said Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Wall Mohammad (Deceased) By L.Rs vs Ram Surat & Ors on 21 September, 1989

It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that if the entry was not correct, it could not be regarded as an entry made according to law at all and the right to take or retain possession of the land could not be deter- mined on the basis of an incorrect entry. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Bachan and another v. Kankar and others, [1973] 1 SCR 727. In that judgment the nature of the entries in Khasra or Khatauni is discussed and it is also discussed as to how this entry should be made. This Court held that entries which are not genuine cannot confer Adhivasi rights. It has been observed that an entry under section 20(b) of the said Act, in order to enable a person to obtain Adhivasi rights, must be an entry under the provisions of law and entries which are not genuine cannot confer Adhivasi rights. In that judgment it has been stated that the High Court was wrong when it held that though the entry was incorrect, it could not be said to be fictitious. That observation, however, has to be understood in the context of what follows, namely, that an entry which is incorrectly introduced into t, he records by reason of iII- will or hostility is not only shorn of authenticity but also becomes utterly useless without any lawful basis. This judgment, in our view, does not lay down that all incorrect entries are fictitious but only lays down that a wrong entry or incorrect entry which has been made by reason of iII-will or hostility cannot confer any right under section 20(b) of the said Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 38 - M H Kania - Full Document

Uma vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation Ballia & ... on 22 May, 2013

"Section 20 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 speaks of a person recorded as occupant to become adhivasi of the land and will be entitled to take or retain possession as mentioned in the section. One of the principal matters mentioned in the section is that the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli is to be prepared under Sections 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The U.P. Land Records Manual in Chapter A-V in para A-55 to A-67 lays down the manner in which the Khasra or the field book showing possession is to be prepared by the Patwari in the areas to which Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 applies. There are detailed instructions about the manner in which the enquiry should be carried out about actual possession and change in possession and corrections in the map and field book, the form in which the khasra is to be prepared. The form of khasra is given in para A-80. The form shows that the Lekhpal has to prepare a consolidated list of entries after partial or proper investigation. Again, para A-70 to A-73 to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act show how entries have to be made in khataunis every year showing the nature of tenure of each holder. The khatauni is meant to be a record of tenure-holders. The manner of changes to be made there is laid down in para A-82 to A-83. Entries are to be checked. Extract has to be sent to the Chairman, Land Management Committee as contemplated in paragraph A-82 (iii). In this context Section 20(b)(i) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which speaks of the record "as occupant" in the khasra or khatauni of 1356 Fasli refers to the khasra or khatauni being prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1901. Khasra is the field book provided for by Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. Khatauni is an annual register prepared under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act 1951. It has to be emphasised that the entry under Section 20 (b)(i) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in order to enable a person to obtain adhivasi rights must be an entry under the provisions of law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramjeet Upadhyaya & Others vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ... on 18 November, 2011

In Bachan and another Vs. Kankar and others, AIR 1972 SC 2157 the Apex Court has held that an entry incorrectly introduced by Patwari into the record of rights in favour of a person is suspicious, confers no right on such person under section 20(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The relevant portion is reproduced below:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - P Krishna - Full Document

Amrawati vs D.D.C. And 6 Ors. on 27 July, 2016

11. Under Section 20 (b) (ii) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, a person recorded as occupant in khasra or khatuni 1356 F prepared under Section 28 and 33 respectively of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, or who was on the date, immediately proceeding the date of vesting entitled to regain possession thereof under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of United Provinces Tenancy Amendment Act, 1947, shall be called adhivasi of the land and shall subject to provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. Explanation -II to this section provides that where any entry in the records referred to in clause (b) has been corrected before the date of vesting under or in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1091, the entry so corrected shall for the purposes of the said clause shall prevail. By U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954 (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954) Chapter IX-A was added in U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, by which adhivasi were conferred sirdari right. In present case, the petitioner did not file any document to show that Ram Surat was recorded as occupant in 1356 F. The petitioner relied upon khasra 1359 F, in which name of Ram Surat was recorded in remark column. Entry of 1359 F is relevant only in those cases, where it was corrected, according to the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Thus on its basis, no right can be claimed. Supreme Court in Bachan v. Kankar, AIR 1972 SC 2157, held that it is too obvious to be stressed that an entry which is incorrectly introduced into the records by reason of ill-will or hostility is not only shorn of authenticity but also becomes utterly useless without any lawful basis.
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Shanti Devi vs District Judge Gonda And Others. on 1 July, 2024

5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that if the entry was not correct, it could not be regarded as an entry made according to law at all and the right to take or retain possession of the land could not be determined on the basis of an incorrect entry. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Bachan v. Kankar (1972) 2 SCC 555. In that judgment the nature of the entries in Khasra or Khatauni is discussed and it is also discussed as to how this entry should be made. This Court held that entries which are not genuine cannot confer Adhivasi rights. It has been observed that an entry under Section 20(b) of the said Act, in order to enable a person to obtain Adhivasi rights, must be an entry under the provisions of law and entries which are not genuine cannot confer Adhivasi rights. In that judgment it has been stated that the High Court was wrong when it held that though the entry was incorrect, it could not be said to be fictitious. That observation, however, has to be understood in the context of what follows, namely, that an entry which is incorrectly introduced into the records by reason of ill-will or hostility is not only shorn of authenticity but also becomes utterly useless without any lawful basis. This judgment, in our view, does not lay down that all incorrect entries are fictitious but only lays down that a wrong entry or incorrect entry which has been made by reason of ill-will or hostility cannot confer any right under Section 20(b) of the said Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next