# Chheda Khan & Ors v. D.D.C. Raebareli & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 874
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 97 of 1998
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chheda-khan-ors-v-d-d-c-raebareli-ors-46834
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Dilip
Kumar
Pandey,
Gopesh
Tripathi, R.N. Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Singh,
Yogendra Nath Yadav

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Section 9-A(2), 48 - The
question
for
consideration,
is
as
to
whether the revision under Section 48 of
the Consolidation of Holdings Act could
have been decided without issuing notices
and affording opportunity to the affected
parties or not. (Para 9)

In the instant case, the revisions under Section
48 were registered on the report of the
consolidation officer. S.48(3) provides that any
authority, subordinate to the director
of
consolidation may, after allowing the parties
concerned an opportunity of being heard refer
the record of any case or proceedings to the
Director of Consolidation for action u/subsection 1. The reference/report made by the
consolidation officer has been filed by the
opposite parties alongwith the counter-affidavit.
(Para 11)

Hon'ble Court relied upon various decisions and
followed the principle that the duty to give
reasons for coming to a decision is of
decisive importance which cannot be
lawfully
disregarded.
Reason
is
the
heartbeat
of
every
conclusion.
It
introduces clarity in an order and without
the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons
substitute
subjectivity
by
objectivity.
Absence of reasons renders the order
indefensible/unsustainable
particularly
when the order is subject to further
challenge before a higher forum. (Para 17)

The revisional authority, merely, on the basis of
a report, without issuing notices and recording
any reasons, has set aside the orders passed by
the Courts below. The recording of reasons is
must, which discloses as to how the mind has
been applied by the authority in arriving at the
conclusion. Secondly, Even if the authority, on
the basis of report, is of the view that the
entries are forged, the affected persons are
required to be given opportunity of being heard
to show the justification of entries made in their
favour. The authority is also under obligation to
record reasons as to how the entries are forged.
(Para 19, 20)

The impugned order has been passed not only
in flagrant violation of the principles of
natural justice as well as provisions
contained in S. 48 of the Consolidation of
Holdings Act but it is cryptic order without
assigning any reasons. (Para 21)

Writ petition partly allowed.( E-3)

Precedent followed:

## Text

874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and there should also exist some materials
to come to such a conclusion."

15. The Supreme Court in the case of
Satpal Singh vs State of Punjab : (2018)
13 SCC 813 has held that in case of bail
under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act where
quantity of contraband is more than the
commercial quantity prescribed under the
Statute, reference to Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S. Act has to be taken into
consideration and the level of satisfaction
as prescribed under Section 37(1)(b) of the
Act is required to be recorded. If the Court
granting
bail
has
not
taken
into
consideration the provisions of Section 37
of the N.D.P.S. Act and, recorded the level
of satisfaction as mandated under Section
37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the order granting
bail to such an accused would not be
sustainable.

Para 13 and 14 of the aforesaid
judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-

"13. In any case, the protection
under Section 438 CrPC is available to the
accused only till the court summons the
accused based on the charge-sheet [report
under Section 173(2) CrPC]. On such
appearance, the accused has to seek
regular bail under Section 439 CrPC and
that application has to be considered by the
court on its own merits. Merely because an
accused was under the protection of
anticipatory bail granted under Section 438
CrPC that does not mean that he is
automatically entitled to regular bail under
Section 439 CrPC. The satisfaction of the
court for granting protection under Section
438 CrPC is different from the one under
Section 439 CrPC while considering
regular bail.

14. Be that as it may, the order
dated 21-9-2017 [Beant Singh v. State of
Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3801]
passed by the High Court does not show
that there is any reference to Section 37 of
the NDPS Act. The quantity is reportedly
commercial. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, the High Court could not have
and should not have passed the order under
Section 438 or 439 CrPC without reference
to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and without
entering a finding on the required level of
satisfaction
in
case
the
Court
was
otherwise inclined to grant the bail. Such a
satisfaction having not being entered, the
order dated 21-9-2017 [Beant Singh v.
State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H
3801] is only to be set aside and we do so."

16. Considering the facts of the
present case, the Court does not find any
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused-applicant prima facie has not
committed the offence and, would not
commit any offence in future while on bail
inasmuch as he has criminal history of
identical cases. Since, in the present case
bar prescribed under Section 37(1)(b) of
the N.D.P.S. Act is not crossed, this Court
does not find any ground to enlarge the
accused-applicant on bail

17. This bail application is rejected.
----------
(2021)02ILR A874
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. 97 of 1998

Chheda Khan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C. Raebareli & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
2 All. Chheda Khan & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. Raebareli & Ors.
875
V.K. Pandey, A.K. Jauhari, Kr. U.B. Singh,
S.P. Singh, Surendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Dilip
Kumar
Pandey,
Gopesh
Tripathi, R.N. Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Singh,
Yogendra Nath Yadav

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Section 9-A(2), 48 - The
question
for
consideration,
is
as
to
whether the revision under Section 48 of
the Consolidation of Holdings Act could
have been decided without issuing notices
and affording opportunity to the affected
parties or not. (Para 9)

In the instant case, the revisions under Section
48 were registered on the report of the
consolidation officer. S.48(3) provides that any
authority, subordinate to the director
of
consolidation may, after allowing the parties
concerned an opportunity of being heard refer
the record of any case or proceedings to the
Director of Consolidation for action u/subsection 1. The reference/report made by the
consolidation officer has been filed by the
opposite parties alongwith the counter-affidavit.
(Para 11)

Hon'ble Court relied upon various decisions and
followed the principle that the duty to give
reasons for coming to a decision is of
decisive importance which cannot be
lawfully
disregarded.
Reason
is
the
heartbeat
of
every
conclusion.
It
introduces clarity in an order and without
the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons
substitute
subjectivity
by
objectivity.
Absence of reasons renders the order
indefensible/unsustainable
particularly
when the order is subject to further
challenge before a higher forum. (Para 17)

The revisional authority, merely, on the basis of
a report, without issuing notices and recording
any reasons, has set aside the orders passed by
the Courts below. The recording of reasons is
must, which discloses as to how the mind has
been applied by the authority in arriving at the
conclusion. Secondly, Even if the authority, on
the basis of report, is of the view that the
entries are forged, the affected persons are
required to be given opportunity of being heard
to show the justification of entries made in their
favour. The authority is also under obligation to
record reasons as to how the entries are forged.
(Para 19, 20)

The impugned order has been passed not only
in flagrant violation of the principles of
natural justice as well as provisions
contained in S. 48 of the Consolidation of
Holdings Act but it is cryptic order without
assigning any reasons. (Para 21)

Writ petition partly allowed.( E-3)

Precedent followed:

1.
Sheo
Nand
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation; (2000) 3 SCC 103 (Para 14)

2. Sher Singh (Dead) by LR's Vs Joint Director of
Consolidation & ors.; (1978) 3 SCC 172 (Para
15)

3. Ram Phal Vs St. of Har. & ors.; (2009) 3 SCC
258 (Para 17)

4. Secretary & Curator Victorial Memorial Hall Vs
Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity (Para 18)

Present petition has been filed challenging
the order dated 10.12.1997, passed by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Raibareily.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.K. Jauhari, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mahendra
Kumar Mishra, learned Standing counsel
for the opposite party nos. 1,2 and 3 and Sri
Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.4.

2. This petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 10.12.1997
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation(hereinafter
referred
as
D.D.C.), Raibareily by means of which the
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revision
under
Section
48
of
the
Consolidation of Holdings Act has been
allowed
without
issuing
notices
or
affording opportunity to the petitioners.

3. The facts, for adjudication of the
instant writ petition as emerged from the
pleadings, are that the lease of the disputed
lands was granted to the petitioners. The
opposite party nos. 6 and 9 had filed
objections under Section 9-A(2) of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act, which were
allowed by the consolidation officer after
affording
opportunity
to
adduce
the
evidence and after considering the same by
means of the orders dated 11.12.1996.
Thereafter the Gaon Sabha had filed an
application for restoration. Considering the
same, the order dated 11.12.1996 was
stayed by means of the order dated
31.12.1996. Challenging the same, the
revisions were filed. In the meantime, Gaon
Sabha had also filed the appeals against the
orders dated 11.12.1996. The appeals were
rejected by means of the order dated
29.10.1997. The Gaon Sabha had filed a
revision against the same, which was
registered as Revision No.1150 of 1997.

4. A report dated 08.12.1997 was
submitted by the Consolidation officer to
the effect that the entries in the name of the
petitioners in the revenue records are
forged because the land in dispute is
recorded as 'Oosar' in the Khatauni. On the
basis of the said report, three revisions
were registered under Section 48 of
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act.
The
D.D.C., after perusing the report and the
records, allowed the revisions without
issuing notices to the petitioners on the
ground that for cancelling the forged
entries, parties need not be informed, as has
been held by the Board of Revenue as well
as the High Court and set aside the order
dated 29.10.1997 passed by the Settlement
Officer Consolidation and order dated
11.12.1996 passed by the Consolidation
Officer. Hence the present writ petition has
been filed.

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the petitioners had got
the lease of the lands in dispute from the
Gaon Sabha. Objections filed by the
petitioner nos. 6 and 9 were allowed by the
Consolidation Officer and the appeal filed
against the same was dismissed by the
Settlement Officer Consolidation, which
was
challenged
in
revision.
In
the
meantime a report was submitted on
08.12.1997 by the Consolidation Officer
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation alleging that the entries
made in the name of the petitioners are
forged, on the basis of which also the
revision
was
registered.
He
further
submitted that the report was submitted
without affording any opportunity to the
petitioners and the Deputy Director of
Consolidation also without issuing notice
or affording any opportunity to the
petitioners allowed the revisions without
authority of law and the order passed by the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
and
Consolidation Officer have been set aside
in an arbitrary and illegal manner, which
could not have been done.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the
basis
of
report
submitted
by
the
Consolidation Officer submitted that it was
found that the entries made in favour of the
petitioners are forged one and for forged
entries, there is no requirement of issuing
any notice or affording any opportunity to
the concerned. Therefore the impugned
order has rightly been passed in accordance
with law and it does not suffer from any
illegality or error.
2 All. Chheda Khan & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. Raebareli & Ors.
877

7. Learned counsel for the Gaon
Sabha does not dispute that the order has
been
passed
without
affording
any
opportunity. However, he submitted that
the entries were made without approval of
patta as per the pleadings and records
annexed with the writ petition. Therefore
the entries made in favour of the petitioners
are forged and the impugned order has
rightly been passed.

8. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the orders and documents placed
on record.

9. The question for consideration, in
the present writ petition, is as to whether
the revision under Section 48 of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act could have
been decided without issuing notices and
affording opportunity to the affected parties
or not. For consideration of the issue, it
would be appropriate to reproduce Section
48, which reads as under:-

48. Revision and reference.- (1)
The Director of Consolidation may call for
and examine the record of any case decided
or proceedings taken by any subordinate
authority for the purpose of satisfying
himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings; or as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order][other
than an interlocutory order]passed by such
authority in the case or proceedings, may,
after allowing the parties concerned an
opportunity of being heard, make such
order in the case or proceedings as he
thinks fit.

(2) Powers under sub-section (1)
may be exercised by the Director of
Consolidation also on a reference under
sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority subordinate to
the Director of Consolidation may, after
allowing
the
parties
concerned
an
opportunity of being heard, refer the record
of any case or proceedings to the Director
of Consolidation for action under subsection (1).

[Explanation.
-][(1)]For
the
purposes
of
this
section,
Settlement
Officers,
Consolidation,
Consolidation
Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers,
Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals
shall be subordinate to the Director of
Consolidation.

Explanation(2)
-
For
the
purposes of this section the expression
'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or
proceeding, means such order deciding any
matter arising in such case or proceeding
or collateral thereto as does not have the
effect to finally disposing of such case or
proceeding.

[Explanation(3). - The power
under
this
section
to
examine
the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order includes the power to examine any
finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by
any
subordinate
authority,
and
also
includes the power to re-appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence.]

10. Section 48 provides that the
Director of Consolidation may call for and
examine the record of any case decided or
proceedings taken by any subordinate
authority for the purpose of satisfying
himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings, or as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order passed by
such authority in the case of proceedings,
may after allowing the parties concerned an
opportunity of being heard make such order
in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.
Therefore the revision and reference under
Section 48 can be decided only after
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allowing the parties concerned opportunity
of hearing but in the present case even the
notices have not been issued on the ground
that on the basis of the report submitted by
the consolidation officer and looking to the
records as per requirement, it is apparent
that all the entries are forged. The
revisional authority has also not recorded
as to which of the records were seen and
how he came to the conclusion that the
entries are forged, while the orders dated
11.12.1996 was passed on the basis of oral
as well as documentary evidence.

11. In the instant case, the revisions
under Section 48 were registered on the
report of the consolidation officer. Sub
Section 3 of Section 48 provides that any
authority, subordinate to the director of
consolidation may, after allowing the parties
concerned an opportunity of being heard refer
the record of any case or proceedings to the
Director of Consolidation for action under
sub-section 1. The reference/report made by
the consolidation officer has been filed by the
opposite parties alongwith the counter
affidavit.

12. Perusal of the report/reference
dated 08.12.1997 filed alongwith the
counter affidavit indicates that before
submitting the report, no opportunity of
hearing was afforded by the consolidation
officer to the affected persons, i.e,
petitioners.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has also submitted that no
opportunity was afforded. Therefore this
Court
is
of
the
view
that
the
report/reference
submitted
by
the
Consolidation
Officer
was
without
following the due process of law. Therefore
the same could not have been accepted, that
too without issuing notices and affording
opportunity to the affected parties i.e. the
petitioners.

13. The power conferred under Section
48 on the Director of Consolidation, are wide
enough so that the claims of the parties under
the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon
and determined so as to confer finality to the
rights of the parties and the revenue records
may be prepared accordingly. Therefore in
case any such report was submitted in
accordance with law that the entries are
forged one, the propriety/legality, regularity
and correctness of the same and the order
challenged in revision can be considered by
him after re-appreciating or re-evaluating the
evidence on record.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case
of Sheo Nand versus Deputy Director of
Consolidation; 2000(3) SCC 103, has held as
under in paragraph 20 and 21:-

"20. The Section gives very wide
powers to the Deputy Director. It enables
him either suo motu on his own motion or
on the application of any person to
consider the propriety, legality, regularity
and correctness of all the proceedings held
under the Act and to pass appropriate
orders. These powers have been conferred
on the Deputy Director in the widest terms
so that the claims of the parties under the
Act may be effectively adjudicated upon
and determined so as to confer finality to
the rights of the parties and the Revenue
Records may be prepared accordingly."

21.Normally,
the
Deputy
Director, in exercise of his powers, is not
expected to disturb the findings of fact
recorded concurrently by the Consolidation
Officer
and
the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation), but where the findings are
perverse, in the sense that they are not
supported by the evidence brought on
record by the parties or that they are
against the weight of evidence, it would be
the duty of the Deputy Director to
2 All. Chheda Khan & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. Raebareli & Ors.
879
scrutinise the whole case again so as to
determine the correctness, legality or
propriety of the orders passed by the
authorities subordinate to him. In a case,
like the present, where the entries in the
Revenue record are fictitious or forged or
they were recorded in contravention of the
statutory provisions contained in the U.P.
Land Records Manual or other allied
statutory provisions, the Deputy Director
would have full power underSection 48to
re-appraise or re-evaluate the evidence on
record so as to finally determine the rights
of the parties by excluding forged and
fictitious revenue entries or entries not
made in accordance with law."

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
case of Sher Singh(Dead) by LR's versus
Joint Director of Consolidation and
others;(1978) 3 SCC 172, has held that the
powers conferred under Section 48 of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act is pari
materia to Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The relevant paragraphs 4,5 and
12 are reproduced below:-

4.The principal question that falls
for our determination in this case is
whether in passing the impugned order, the
Joint Director of Consolidation, exceeded
the limits of the jurisdiction conferred on
him under section 48 of the 1953 Act. For a
proper decision of this question, it is
necessary to advert to section 48 of the
1953 Act is it stood on the relevant date
before its amendment by Act No. VIII of
1963 "Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act:
The
Director
of
Consolidation may call for the record of
any case if the Officer (other than the
Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided
appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in him by law or to have failed to
exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have
acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction
illegally or with substantial irregularity
and may pass such orders in the case as it
thinks fit."

5.As the above section is pari
materia with section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, it will be profitable to
ascertain the scope of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court. It is now
well settled that the revisional jurisdiction
of the High Court is confined to cases of
illegal or irregular exercise or nonexercise or illegal assumption of the
jurisdiction by the subordinate courts. If a
subordinate court is found to possess the
jurisdiction to decide a matter, it cannot be
said to exercise it illegally or with material
irregularity even if it decides the matter
wrongly. In other words, it is not open to
the High Court while exer- cising its
jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure to correct errors of fact
howsoever gross or even errors of law
unless the errors have relation to the
jurisdiction of the- court to try the dispute
itself.

12.The position that emerges
from these decisions is that section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the
High Court to satisfy itself on three matters
: (a) that the order of the subordinate court
is within its jurisdiction;(b) that the case is
one in which the court ought to have
exercised jurisdiction; and failed to do so
(c) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court
has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of
some provisions of law, or with material
irregularity by committing some error of
procedure in the course of the trial which is
material in that it may have affected the)
ultimate decision. And if the High Court is
satisfied that there is no error in regard to
any of these three matters, it has no power
to interfere merely because it differs from
the conclusions of the subordinate court on
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
questions of fact or law. A distinction must
be drawn between the errors committed by
subordinate courts in deciding question of
law which have relation to, or are
concerned with, questions of jurisdiction of
the said courts, and errors of law which
have no such relation or connection. An
erroneous decision on a question of fact or
of law reached by the subordinate court
which has no relation to question of
jurisdiction of that court, cannot be
corrected by the High Court under section
115."

16. In view of above, it is not in
dispute that the D.D.C. is conferred with
the widest powers under which he could
have examined the report/reference made to
it, if it was in accordance with law but in
terms of section 48 after affording
opportunity of hearing to the affected
parties. It has not been done in the present
case. The impugned order has been passed
without issuing notices and even without
recording any finding as to how he came to
conclusion that the entries are forged and
the orders passed by the lower court passed
on the basis of evidence are not sustainable.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ram Phal versus State of Haryana
and others; 2009(3) SCC 258 has held that
the duty to give reasons for coming to a
decision is of decisive importance which
cannot
be
lawfully disregarded.
The
relevant paragraph 6 is reproduced below:-

"6.The duty to give reasons for
coming to a decision is of decisive
importance which cannot be lawfully
disregarded. The giving of the satisfactory
reasons is required by the ordinary man's
sense of justice and also a healthy
discipline for all those who exercise power
over others."

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
case of Secretary and Curator Victorial
Memorial
Hall
versus
Howrah
Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, has held that
reason
is
the
heartbeat
of
every
conclusion.The relevant paragraph 41 is
reproduced below:-

"41. Reason is the heartbeat of
every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an
order and without the same, it becomes
lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the
order
indefensible/unsustainable
particularly when the order is subject to
further challenge before a higher forum."

19. In view of above, it was required
to be considered as to whether the
subordinate
consolidation
authorities
have acted illegally in exercising their
jurisdiction or exceeded their jurisdiction
but the revisional authority has failed to
do so and, merely, on the basis of a
report,
without
issuing
notices
and
recording any reasons, has set aside the
orders passed by the courts below. The
recording of reasons is must, which
discloses as to how the mind has been
applied by the authority in arriving at the
conclusion. Therefore the reasons are like
a bridge. It also ensures transparency and
fairness in the decision making. It is also
necessary for the affected party to know
the reasons on which the order has been
passed against him so that he may
challenge the same raising his ground. It
is also necessary for the higher court for
examining the correctness of the order
because unless the reasons are recorded,
the higher Court cannot examine as to
what
transpired
to
the
concerned
authority in reaching to the decision and
the decision is based on correct reasoning
or not.
2 All. Fateh Bahadur Singh Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
881

20. Even if the authority, on the basis
of report, is of the view that the entries are
forged, the affected persons are required to
be given opportunity of being heard to
show the justification of entries made in
their favour. The authority is also under
obligation to record reasons as to how the
entries are forged.

21. In view of above, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned
order has been passed not only in flagrant
violation of the principles of natural justice
as well as provisions contained in Section
48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act
but it is cryptic order without assigning any
reasons. Therefore it has no legs to stand in
the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside
with direction to the opposite party no.1 to
consider afresh and pass the order in
accordance
with
law
after
affording
opportunity to the petitioners.

22. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 10.11.1997 passed in Revision
No.1150,1112,
1113
and
1114
of
1997(Chedda Khan and others versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation) is set
aside. The opposite party no.1 is directed to
decide the revisions afresh in accordance
with law and the observations made herein-above.

23. The parties shall appear before the
opposite party no.1 alongwith the certified
copy of this order on 22.02.2021. The
opposite party no.1 shall make its earnest
endeavour
to
decide
the
revisions
expeditiously and within a period of six
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

24. With the aforesaid, the writ
petition is partly allowed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A881
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. 543 of 1994

Fateh Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.P. Singh, Vijay Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
M.P. Yadav

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Sections 9-A, 11(1), 48 - Land
Records Manual - Para 89-A, 89-B, 102-B -
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. (Para 18)

Therefore, it was for the petitioner to prove that
entry was made after following the due
procedure of law as prescribed under the Land
Records Manual and was duly communicated to
the main tenant and it was within his
knowledge. But he has failed to prove it.
Therefore the petitioner is not entitled on the
basis of adverse possession and alleged
permissive possession is also not sustainable as
the petitioner could not show as to how
Bhagauti Deen (whose name was recorded in
the revenue records) was representative of
family and the possession of father of petitioner
was also not found in basic year. (Para 21)

B.
In
case
of
adverse
possession,
communication to the owner and his
hostility towards the possession is must.
(Para 20)