Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.36 seconds)
Sabhai And Another vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 22 December, 2023 cites

Jamuna Prasad vs Addl. Collector (F & R)/D.D.C. And 2 Ors. on 8 August, 2014

"10. Now, the claim of the petitioners based on adverse possession has to be examined. The petitioners have filed khasra 1369 F, 1377 F, 1380 F, 1385 F, khatauni 1365 F, 1385 F, 1396 F, revenue receipts, irrigation pass- book and examined Sattan, Chhotu, Chandrika, Deocharan and Bholanath as the witnesses. On its basis, they tried to prove that they were in possession of disputed land of two villages from 1365 F and 1369 F according to their share and 1/6 share each. This Court in Jamuna Prasad v. DDC, 1981 RD 112, Gaya Ram v. DDC, 1982 RD 1, Ram Shakal v. DDC, 1987 (2) AWC 878, Gurumukh Singh v. DDC, 1997 RD 276 and Hasan Raza v. DDC, 2006 (101) RD 10, held that in order to rely upon khasra or khatauni entry in column-9, for possession burden is upon the person relying upon it to prove that entry was made after following the procedure of U.P. Land Record Manual. Paragraph-102-C, whereof requires issue/service of PA-10 to the recorded tenure holder and chairman of Land Management Committee and order of Supervisor Kanoongo. Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded findings that entries were not made by the order of competent authority in the khasra and khatauni. Further there is no evidence to prove that before making entry PA-10 was issued/serviced upon recorded tenure holder and chairman of Land Management Committee. There is no evidence that these entries were continuous entries for statutory period to acquire right under Section 210 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. So far as oral evidence is con- cerned, Sattan and Chhotu could not give plot numbers and other details of the land in their possession. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that Chhotu in his statement had claimed disputed land on the basis of adverse possession from a period of 22 years as such their claim that in family partition, they got share each in the disputed land was contradicted from his oral statement."
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A K Mishra - Full Document

Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976

20. This Court, in the cases of Babu Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Supra), Balchan and two Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (Supra), Chandi Prasad (Dead) Through L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (Supra), Shiv Mangal Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Other (Supra) and Shri Nath Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Supra), has consistently held that if an entry has been made in column-9 of the Khatauni without issuing and service of PA-10 on the recorded tenure holder then such an entry was illegal and has no evidentiary value. It has further been held that the burden to prove that PA-10 was issued and served on the tenure holder is lying upon the person relying on the column-9."
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 687 - S M Ali - Full Document

Marwari Kumhar And Ors vs Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri And Anr on 10 August, 2000

In the case of Marwari Kumhar and others vs. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri and another, reported in [MANU/SC/0501/2000: (2000) 6 SCC 735], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of any proof as to the date, time and the manner in which possession gets converted into open, hostile and adverse, the claim for adverse possession can not be upheld.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 64 - S N Variava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next