# Nanki Bai v. D.D.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1328
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-04
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 8021 of 1990
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nanki-bai-v-d-d-c-ors-51803
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act,1953-Section
9-A(2)-U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,1950-Sections 20, 240-A-Petitioner
no.1 filed an objection, seeking to be
declared the bhumidhar of the plots-She
claimed the plots were leased to her
father by the local zamindar-She asserted
her long possession of over 50 years
entitled to bhumidhar rights u/s 20,240A of the Act,1950-Held, the deputy
director of consolidation acted correctly
in dismissing the appellate decision as
the petitioner failed to prove adverse
possession or valid lease agreements-the
petitioner
acted
improperly
by
transferring the property during the
pendency of the case-Filing appeals and
revisions after the village's denotification
constituted
a
misuse
of
legal
process.(Para 1 to 14)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, the Consolidation Officer should
have given the proper opportunity of
hearing, according to provisions of law to
the petitioners also. The authorities erred in
considering the case of the petitioners shut
and close by order dated 31.10.2005 passed
by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by
which the matter was remanded, as
discussed above.

35. The matter is remanded to the
Consolidation Officer to take a decision on
the applications preferred by the petitioners
and respondent 4, as the respondent nos. 5
to 10 have not challenged the revisional
order as it became final against them.

36. The Consolidation Officerrespondent no. 3 is directed to decide the
matter expeditiously by following the
procedure as provided under the statute and
by framing issues regarding the claim of
petitioners as well and provide opportunity
to adduce oral and written evidence to the
petitioners and respondent no. 4/1- Becha
Lal (legal heirs of late Bhuinyadeenrespondent no. 4), who was substituted
after the demise of respondent no. 4, being
an old case of the year 1985, as far as
possible within a period of one year from
the date of production of certified copy of
this order without giving any unnecessary
adjournment to any of the parties.

37. Writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1328
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 8021 of 1990
Nanki Bai ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Ambwani, Sri Awadhesh Prasad Pandey,
Sri Himanshu Pandey, Sri J.P. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri, Sri Harish
Chandra Mishra, Sri Narendra Mohan

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act,1953-Section
9-A(2)-U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,1950-Sections 20, 240-A-Petitioner
no.1 filed an objection, seeking to be
declared the bhumidhar of the plots-She
claimed the plots were leased to her
father by the local zamindar-She asserted
her long possession of over 50 years
entitled to bhumidhar rights u/s 20,240A of the Act,1950-Held, the deputy
director of consolidation acted correctly
in dismissing the appellate decision as
the petitioner failed to prove adverse
possession or valid lease agreements-the
petitioner
acted
improperly
by
transferring the property during the
pendency of the case-Filing appeals and
revisions after the village's denotification
constituted
a
misuse
of
legal
process.(Para 1 to 14)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Nanhoo Mal Vs, Mulloo(1963) LawSuit (All)
92=1964 AIR (ALL) 213

2. Ram Dular Singh & ors. Vs Babu Sukhu & ors.
(1963) Lawsuit (All) 101=1963 RD 221

3. Sharda Prasad Tiwari Vs St.of U.P. & ors.
(2015)127 RD 702

4. Siddh Narayan Vs DDC & ors.(2007)103 RD
627

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
4 All. Nanki Bai Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
1329

In Re: Civil Misc. Impleadment
Application No.3 of 2019

1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Pandey,
learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.
C.S.
Agnihotri,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no.4/1.

2. The instant application has been
filed on behalf of the applicant- Rajendra
Kumar Rai to implead him as petitioner
no.2 in the instant petition on the ground
that the applicant- Rajendra Kumar Rai has
purchased the plot in question by way of
registered sale deed executed on 22.1.2001.

3. On the other hand, Mr. C.S.
Agnihotri, learned counsel for respondent
no.4/1
submitted
that
the
applicant-
Rajendra Kumar Rai has committed forgery
and he is not bona fide purchaser, as such,
he cannot be permitted to be impleaded in
the instant petition. He further submitted
that the petitioner no.1 has already sold the
land in favour of several persons, as such,
the applicant is not entitled to be impleaded
in the instant petition.

4. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

5. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case coupled with the
fact that the writ petition against the order
of the consolidation officer dated 26.3.1981
and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated
26.4.1989 is pending before this Court
since 1990, as such, in order to decide the
dispute finally between the parties, the
applicant- Rajendra Kumar Rai is permitted
to be impleaded in the instant petition as
petitioner no.2.

6. The impleadment application is
accordingly, allowed.
7. Office is directed to implead the
applicant-
Rajendra
Kumar
Rai
as
petitioner no.2 in the array of the parties to
the writ petition.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Pandey,
Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Pandey & Mr. J.P.
Rai, learned counsel for petitioner no.2, Mr.
C.S.
Agnihotri,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no.4/1 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
dispute relates to Khata no.569, plot
no.2083 area 0.30 acres and plot no.2086/1
area 0.70 acres situated at Mauza Mau,
Pargana and Tahsil- Muranipur, District-
Jhansi.
In
the
basic
year
of
the
consolidation operation plot in question
was recorded in the name of respondent
no.4- Bhagwan Das. Against the basic year
entry of the aforementioned plot in
question petitioner no.1/ Nanhi Bai filed an
objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act")
claiming to be bhumidar of the plot in
question on the ground that the plot in
question was given to petitioner's father by
the Zamindar of the area on lease.
Consolidation Officer framed issues in the
aforementioned title objection filed by the
petitioner and afforded opportunity to the
parties to lead evidence in support of their
cases. Consolidation Officer vide order
dated
26.3.1981
decided
the
aforementioned title objection maintaining
the basic year entry as well as expunged the
entry of possession made in favour of the
petitioner. In place of filing appeal against
the order of Consolidation Officer dated
26.3.1981, petitioner filed a Civil Suit No-
1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
799 of 1982 for permanent injunction in
respect to plot in question along with
certain
other
plots
impleading
the
respondent
No-4
as
defendant.
The
aforementioned civil suit was dismissed
vide judgment dated 5.11.1984. The village
in question was de-notified, under Section
52 of U.P.C.H. Act on 16.12.1985. Against
the order of Consolidation Officer dated
26.3.1981, appeal under Section 11 (1) of
U.P.C.H. Act along with the prayer for
condonation of delay of about 6 years was
filed by the petitioner before Settlement
Officer of Consolidation on 20.1.1987. The
aforementioned appeal was registered as
Appeal No.22 and Assistant Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, Jhansi vide
order dated 26.4.1989 granted benefit of
Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as
allowed the appeal setting aside the order
of Consolidation Officer dated 26.3.1981
and directed to record the name of the
petitioner as bhumidhar with transferable
right after expunging the name of
respondent no.4 from the plot in question.
Against
the
appellate
order
dated
26.4.1989, a revision under Section 48 of
U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent
no.4
before
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation.
The
aforementioned
revision was registered as Revision
No.195 / 203. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation vide order dated 23.3.1990
allowed the revision and set aside the
appellate order dated 26.4.1989, hence
this writ petition on behalf of the
petitioner
challenging
the
impugned
revisional order dated 23.3.1990 passed
by respondent no.1 and to restore the
appellate order dated 26.4.1989.

3. This Court vide order dated
6.4.1990 entertained the matter, issued
notice to respondent no.4 and granted
interim protection staying the operation
of the order dated 23.3.1990 passed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation.

4. Since, the date of grant of
interim order dated 6.4.1990, petitioner has
not taken steps to serve the respondent
no.4. Respondent no.4 has expired in the
year 1993 but petitioner has not taken steps
to substitute the legal heir of respondent
no.4, accordingly, abatement application
no.2 of 2019 was filed on behalf of
respondent no.4/1 in the instant petition but
no step was taken on behalf petitioner no.1,
accordingly, this Court vide order dated
8.8.2022 dismissed the writ petition as
abated due to non-substitution of legal heirs
of deceased respondent no.4 and vacated
the interim order. On the recall / restoration
application filed on behalf of petitioner
no.2, the order dated 8.8.2022 was recalled
and writ petition was restored to its original
number vide order dated 5.3.2024. The
application for substitution of legal heir of
respondent no.4 along with the prayer for
condonation of delay was allowed by this
Court
vide
order
dated
5.3.2024.
Respondent no.4/1 has filed her counter
affidavit to the main writ petition and
petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit
also.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the title objection
was filed by the petitioner under Section 9
A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act for recording her
name as bhumidhar with transferable right
as petitioner is in possession for last 50
years over the plot in question. He further
submitted that the Consolidation Officer
has rejected the objection filed by the
petitioner on misconceived ground that
petitioner has failed to prove his adverse
possession over the plot in question. He
next submitted that basis of the petitioner's
objection is long possession of the
4 All. Nanki Bai Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
1331
petitioner since before the date of vesting,
as such, in view of the provisions contained
under Section 20 & 240 A of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act"), petitioner is entitled to be
recorded as bhumidhar of the plot in
question. He further submitted that the
appellate Court has rightly considered the
controversy and allowed the appeal filed by
the petitioner directing the authorities to
record the name of the petitioner as
bhumidhar with transferable rights after
expunging the name of respondent no.4. He
further submitted that the revisional Court
has illegally allowed the revision setting
aside the appellate order on the ground that
the petitioner has failed to prove his
adverse possession in respect to the plot in
question. He further submitted that the case
of the petitioner has not been examined by
the Consolidation Officer as well as Deputy
Director of Consolidation taking into
consideration the provisions of Section 20
& 240A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He next
submitted that the revisional Court has not
afforded proper opportunity of hearing to
petitioner no.1 while deciding the revision
under the impugned order. He further
placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court reported in 1963 LawSuit (All)
92=1964 AIR (ALL) 213, Nanhoo Mal vs.
Mulloo as well as 1963 LawSuit (All)
101=1963 RD 221, Ram Dular Singh &
Others vs. Babu Sukhu Ram & Others in
support of his argument with respect to the
provisions contained under Sections 20 &
240A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

6. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.4/1
submitted
that
nobody
is
representing the petitioner no.1, as such,
the writ petition cannot be entertained and
liable to be dismissed. He further submitted
that the petitioner no.1 has misused the
process of law by executing the sale deed
in favour of petitioner no.2 without getting
permission from this Court, as such, the
writ petition filed by the petitioner no.1 is
liable to be dismissed with cost. He further
submitted that the petitioner no.1 has not
taken steps to serve the respondent no.4
after getting the interim order from this
Court in the year 1990, as such, petitioners
are not entitled to any relief in the matter.
He next submitted that the title objection
filed by the petitioner has been rightly
rejected by the Consolidation Officer
holding that the entry of possession in
favour of petitioner is illegal. He next
submitted that no document regarding lease
by the Zamindar was filed before the
Consolidation Officer nor the Zamindar
was examined before the Consolidation
Officer, as such, the claim of the petitioner
was rightly rejected by the Consolidation
Officer. He next submitted that the
petitioner has failed to prove the issuance
of P.A.-10, as such, the entry of possession
will not give any right to petitioner. He
further submitted that after decision of
Consolidation Officer dated 26.3.1981
petitioner no.1 filed a civil suit for
injunction in respect to the plot in question,
which was dismissed with finding that
petitioner no.1 is neither owner nor in
possession of the plot in question. He
further submitted that C.H. Form-45 was
prepared in the name of respondent no.4 as
well as respondent no.4/1 as respondent no.
4 had executed sale-deed in favour of his
daughter/respondent no.4/1 on 20.10.1985.
He further submitted that village in
question was de-notified, under Section 52
of U.P.C.H. Act on 16.12.1985 and appeal
under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was
filed on 20.1.1987, which has been illegally
entertained & allowed by appellate Court
vide
order
dated
26.4.1989,
hence
1332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisional Court has rightly exercised his
jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act
in setting aside the appellate order dated
26.4.1989. He further placed reliance upon
the judgments of this Court as well as
Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of
opportunity of hearing as well as the
provisions contained under Section 20 &
240-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in order to
demonstrate that no right will accrue to the
petitioners. The particulars of the judgments
cited by learned counsel for respondent
no.4/1 are as under:

"i. 2022 LawSuit (MP) 1678, Shanti
w/o Late Ramdas Laxmi w/o Ramswaroop
vs. State of Madhya Prasad Executive
Engineer PWD Division 1 Gwalior: Sub
Divisional Officer PWD.
ii.
AIR
1978
Allahabad
139,
Raghubir Sahai Bhatnagar vs. Bhakt Sajja.
iii. Civil Revision No.19 of 2012,
Kamleshwar Shahi vs. Rajeev Khurana,
judgement dated 20.5.2014.
iv. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5971 of
1985 in Writ Petition No.6178 of 1984.
v. Civil Appeal No.7550-7553 of
2021 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.2637426377 of 2013), Shri K. Jaya Ram & Others
Vs. Bangalore Development Authority &
Others, judgment dated 8.12.2021.
vi. 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 504,
Narasamma and Others vs. A.Krishnappa
(dead) through LRs.
vii. 2018 0 Supreme (All) 850,
Chauthi vs. D.D.C. And Others.
viii. 2013 LawSuit (All) 1533, Sri
Pal vs. D.D.C. & Others.
ix.
2022
LawSuit
(All)
708,
Bhagwati
Deen
vs.
Sheetladin
and
Others."

7. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute about the
fact that the title objection filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed by the
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
26.3.1981. There is also no dispute about
the fact that village in question was denotified, under Section 52 of U.P.C.H on
16.12.1985, but in appeal filed by the
petitioner on 20.1.1987, the order of
Consolidation Officer dated 26.3.1981
was set aside and petitioner was ordered
to be recorded as bhumidhar with
transferable rights. There is also no
dispute about the fact that in revision
filed by respondent no.4, the appellate
order dated 26.4.1989 has been set aside
affirming the order of Consolidation
Officer dated 26.3.1981. There is also no
dispute about the fact that Civil Suit No-
799 of 1982 filed by petitioner was
dismissed by civil Court on 15.11.1984
holding
that
petitioner
is
not
in
possession of the plot in question.

9. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the matter, perusal
of the order dated 26.3.1981 passed by the
Consolidation Officer will be relevant,
which is as under:

" न्यायािय श्रीमान चकबंदी अधिकारी
झांसी
िाद सं0-5059 िारा 9ए(2)जोत चकबंदी
अधिधनयम उ0प्र0
िाम मऊ परगना मऊ म्जिा झांसी
पक्ष नन्िी बाई बनाम धभगिानदास ता0
फैसिा 26.3.81
धनमन िाद वबन्दू बनाये गयेः-
1-
क्या वििाहदत भूधम का मु0 नन्नी बाई से भूधमिरी
अधिकार प्राप्त िै।
2-
क्या प्रधतिादी असि काश्तकार भूधमिर िै और
काविज िै।
3-
क्या मु0 नन्नी बाई का कब्जे का इन्राज फजी िै।
4 All. Nanki Bai Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
1333
धनणजय
िाद विन्दु संख्या 1,2 ि 3- तीनो िाद
विन्दु एक दूसरे से संबंधित िै। अतः एक सार्थ तय
हकये जाते िै। श्रीमती नन्नी बाई पत्नी मुकुन्द िादी
ने िपर्थपूिजक कर्थन हकया हक इस भूधम को उसने
चन्रभान ि अजमेर धसंि जमींदार से पट्र्े पर धिया
र्था पििे उसके वपता बिोरन जोतते र्थे और उनकी
मरने के बाद िि स्ियं काविज िै। उसमें कूप उसके
वपता ने खुदिाया और सरकारी कजाज धिया और बाग
िगाया कधियाना पैदा हकया जाता िै। श्री बदिू पुर्त्र
नत्र्थू िादी साक्षी ने भी उि कर्थन की पुवष्ट की िै
हक नन्िी बाई इस भूधम को खेती कर रिी िै। उसने
स्िीकार हकया हक भगिानदास अपनी भूधम पर ि
मु० नन्नी बाई अपनी भूधमिर कावबज िै। िादी ने
कब्जे के समर्थजन में कुि रसीदे जमीदारी ि बाद की
प्रस्तुत की िै। जो हदनांक 14.4.64 िगान 4/-
बिोरन धसंि की भूधम िगान मारफ्त राजािेर्ी
56/57,27/3/61, 27.4.60 चन्रभान धसंि द्वारा दी
गयी प्रस्तुत की, एक रसीद मु० नन्नी बाई के नाम
1357 फ० 1362 फ0 प्रस्तुत की िै म्जसके द्वारा
कब्जा धसद्ध हकया गया िै हकन्तु इन िस्तधिम्खत
कागज को पधचजयों में न तो कोई भूधम का ब्योरा ि
वििरण िी िै और न यि धसद्ध िोता िै हक नन्नी
िाई द्वारा िगान का भुगतान हकया गया िै कोई
खसरे के इन्राज कब्जा धसद्ध करने के धिये ि िगज 9
क इन्राज का धिम्खत साक्ष्य भी प्रस्तुत निीं हकया
गया। जमींदार द्वारा हदया गया पट्र्ा भी पेि निीं
हकया गया और न जमींदार को िी पेि हकया गया
िै। जबहक िि जीवित िै। जीवित जमींदार को पेि न
करना िादी के दाये के क्षीण कर देता िै। हकतना
िगान हदया मािूम निीं िै। िादी अपना कब्जा धसद्ध
करने में असफि रिी िै।

प्रधतिादी भगिानदास ने मु० नन्नी बाई के
कब्जे को अस्िीकार करते िुए अपना कब्जा स्र्थि पर
कर्थन हकया। िगान भी स्ियं देना बताया श्री रमेि
चन्र पुर्त्र राजाराम प्रधतिादी साक्षी ने भी मु० नन्नी
बाई के कब्जे को इनकार हकया िै। आर०डी० 1900
पृष्ठ 190 पर व्यि हकये गये मत के अनुसार से
संिमणीय भूधमिरी अधिकार गाधसिाना कब्जे के
आिार पर उसी को हदये जा सकते िै जो िास्तविक
कब्जे में िो और असि कृषक को वबना सिमधत के
िोगा महििा मु० नन्नी बाई का स्ियं का कृवषक
actual cultivatory possession निीं रिा और इस
आिार पर महििा को िारा 210 ज०वि० अधिधनयम
के अन्तगजत से संिमणीय भूधमिरी अधिकार प्राप्त
निीं िोते। िाद विन्दु संख्या नकारात्मक िाद विन्दु
2 ि 3 सकारात्मक तय हकये जाते िै।

आदेि

गार्ा
संख्या
2092/1/0-60,
8283/1/0-05,
2083/0-30,2086/1/0-70 पर से मु० नन्नी बाई
पुर्त्री मुकन्दी धन० प िारीपुि का कब्जा खाररज करके
दजज खातेदार भगिानदास पुर्त्र िक्ष्मी नारायन का
नाम यर्थाित दजज रिे।

पर्त्राििी िाद अमिदरामद दाम्खि दफ्तर िो।
ि0/अस्पष्ट च0अ0
26.3.81

10. The perusal of the order passed
by
the
Consolidation
Officer
dated
26.3.1981
demonstrate
that
the
Consolidation Officer has exercised the
jurisdiction in proper manner by framing
issues
and
considering
the
evidence
adduced by the parties in support of their
cases. The perusal of the order further
demonstrates that the Consolidation Officer
while rejecting the title objection filed by
the petitioner against the basic year entry as
recorded finding that petitioner is not in
actual cultivatory possession of the plot in
question, as such, petitioner is not entitled
to
be
recorded
as
bhumidhar
with
transferable rights.

11. It is material to state that the
appeal under Section 11 of U.P.C.H. Act
1334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was filed on behalf of the petitioner on
20.1.1987 although village was de-notified
under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act on
16.12.1985. It is also material that title
objection filed by the petitioner herself was
rejected by the Consolidation Officer on
26.3.1981 and civil suit for permanent
injunction filed by the petitioner herself
was dismissed on 5.11.1984, as such, the
filing of appeal at the instance of the
petitioner on 20.1.1987 after de-notification
of the village was misuse of the process of
law.
The
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation has illegally entertained and
allowed the appeal under Section 11 of
U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioner. The
filing of appeal and revision after denotification of the village of under Section
52 of U.P.C.H. Act has been considered by
this Court in the case reported in 2015
(127) RD 702, Sharda Prasad Tiwari vs.
State of U.P. and Others as well as 2007
(103) RD 627, Siddh Narayan Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation and Others. In
the aforementioned cases, this Court has
held that the appeal and revision can be
filed even after de-notification of the
village under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act in
the facts and circumstances of the cases. In
the instant matter, petitioner was fully
aware about the order of Consolidation
Officer dated 26.3.1981 even petitioner
no.1 had filed a civil suit after decision of
title objection by the Consolidation Officer,
which was dismissed on 5.11.1984. The
C.H. Form-45 was prepared by the
Consolidation Authorities and village has
been de-notified on 6.12.1985, as such, the
filing of appeal under Section 11 of
U.P.C.H. Act on 20.1.1987 was misuse of
the process of law. The appeal and revision
cannot be filed after de-notification of the
village in each and every cases particularly
where the parties were fully aware about
the order of Consolidation Officer passed
during consolidation operation. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation has rightly set
aside the order passed by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation although on
different ground holding that petitioner has
not been found in cultivatory possession of
the plot in question and maintained the
basic year entry of the plot in question.

12. The Settlement Officer of
Consolidation while allowing the appeal
filed by the petitioner has held that the
petitioner has filed the lagan receipt of
1357 fasli and 1362 fasli, which proves the
possession of the petitioner, accordingly,
petitioner is entitled to be recorded on the
basis of adverse possession as bhumidhar
with transferable rights but the finding
recorded by the Consolidation Officer
while deciding the title objection has not
been reversed in proper manner. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation while
deciding the revision has recorded the
finding of fact that in order to prove the
adverse possession the issuance of P.A.-10
is mandatory but the same has not been
proved that P.A.-10 was issued in the
matter, accordingly, Deputy Director of
Consolidation allowed the appeal filed by
respondent no.4 setting aside the appellate
order dated 26.4.1989, which is just and
proper exercise of jurisdiction by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation.

13. It is material in the instant
matter that petitioner no.1 has filed the
instant petition in the year 1990 and
obtained interim order on 6.4.1990 but she
herself transferred the property in question
by way of sale deed in favour of petitioner
no.2
on
22.1.2001
without
getting
permission of this Court, which is misuse
of the interim order passed by this Court on
6.4.1990 in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner no.1 herself. Petitioner has not
4 All. Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
1335
taken steps to serve respondent no.4 in
proper manner rather transferred the
property in question from time to time in
favour of strangers, as such, petitioners are
not entitled to any relief in the matter.

14. Considering the conduct of
petitioner no.1 as well as the order dated
26.3.1981 passed by the Consolidation
Officer rejecting the title objection filed by
the petitioner, no interference is required in
the matter, the writ petition is accordingly,
dismissed.

15. No order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1335
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 24167 of 2017

Karamjeet Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pradeep Singh

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006Sections 76(dd) & 77-The petitioner's
father was allotted land in 1973 and
recorded as a Sirdar later becoming a
Bhumidhar with non-trnasferable rights
under operation of law-In 1989, his name
was expunged from revenue records,
downgrading
his
status
to
AsamiSubsequent
revisions
challenging
this
decision were dismissed-Held, the court
ruled that the land was not covered u/s 77
of the Code,2006-U/s 76(dd), even an
Asami
in
possession
could
acquire
Bhumidhar rights if conditions were metThe impugned orders were found illegal
and were set aside-The respondents were
directed to record the petitioners'name as
bhumidhar with transferable rights within
six weeks.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gangadeen Vs St.of U.P. & ors.(2018) 138 RD
68

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned
counsel for respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
the petitioners' father was employed in the
Indian Army and after retirement from the
Armed Forces, he was inclined to settle at
Mauza Roshannagar, Pargana Arhaura,
Tehsil
Chunar,
District
Mirzapur.
Petitioners' father filed an application dated
24.03.1973 before the District Magistrate,
Mirzapur, for allotting a peace of land to
him so that he may cultivate, reside and
earn his livelihood. On the application of
petitioners' father proceeding was started
and a land was allotted in favour of
petitioners' father on 22.10.1973. The SubDivisional Magistrate granted his approval
in respect to the aforementioned allotment
made in favour of the petitioners' father
giving him Sirdari right in respect to plot
Nos. 84, 102, 104, 1, 64/1, 103, 104/183.
Naiyab
Tehsildar,
vide
order
dated
20.08.1975, ordered to record the name of
petitioners' father as Sirdar in respect to
plot Nos. 84, 102, 104, 1, 64/1, 103,