# Sabhai & Anr v. D.D.C., Faizabad

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 725
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-22
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 2255 of 1982
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sabhai-anr-v-d-d-c-faizabad-50954
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 -
Section 180(2) - Adverse Possession -
Burden of Proof - The petitioners claimed
rights over Khata No. 162 based on adverse
possession, relying on entries in Khasra and
Khatauni - Held, the burden lies on the claimant
to prove adverse possession through evidence
that entries were made per the U.P. Land
Records Manual, including issuance and service
of Form PA-10 to the recorded tenure holder
and Land Management Committee; petitioners
failed to produce such evidence, rendering
entries legally invalid, as per Gurmukh Singh Vs
Dy. Director of Consolidation. (Paras 24, 33, 35,
37, 44)

Evidentiary Value of Revenue Entries - The
petitioners relied on Khasra and Khatauni entries
to establish possession - Held, entries in
column-9 of Khatauni lack evidentiary value if
not made in accordance with Paragraphs A-80, A81, and 102-C of the U.P. Land Records Manual,
particularly without proof of PA-10 service;
petitioners' failure to produce PA-10 or testimony
from revenue officials invalidated their claim, as
supported by Jamuna Prasad Vs Dy. Director of
Consolidation. (Paras 21, 24, 35, 37, 44)

Estoppel - Failure to Challenge Findings -
The petitioners did not challenge the Assistant
Settlement Officer's finding that Dukhi and
Khelawan were sons of Ghurai in the revision
before the Deputy Director of Consolidation -
Held, they are estopped from raising this issue
in writ proceedings, as the finding became final,
per Balchan Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation.
(Paras 24, 32)

Framing of Issues - Adequacy - The
petitioners argued that the Consolidation Officer
failed to frame proper issues on adverse
possession - Held, Issues 1 and 2 framed by the
Consolidation
Officer
adequately
addressed
possession
and
sirdari
rights,
requiring
petitioners to prove lawful possession via PA-10
evidence, which they failed to do, as clarified in
Sattan Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation. (Paras
13, 40)

Oral Evidence and Adverse Possession -
The petitioners contended that oral evidence
supporting possession was ignored - Held, while
adverse possession can be proved by oral and
documentary evidence, the absence of PA-10
evidence and failure to produce revenue officials
to substantiate entries rendered oral evidence
insufficient, as per Mangu Vs Dy. Director of
Consolidation. (Paras 26, 36, 39)

Unrebutted Averments in Writ Petition -
The
petitioners
argued
that
unrebutted
averments in the petition should be deemed
admitted - Held, findings in consolidation
proceedings must be based on evidence before
the authorities, not uncontroverted writ petition
averments; petitioners failed to demonstrate
perversity in the authorities' findings, as per
Azadar Hussain Khan Vs Dy. Director of
Consolidation. (Paras 26, 41)

U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 - Section 180(2) -
Inapplicability - The petitioners raised a plea
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 180(2) regarding the absence of
an eviction suit - Held, this plea is misconceived
as it was not raised in pleadings and the case
rested solely on adverse possession, which
requires proof of hostile possession, not merely
absence of eviction, as per Ram Naresh Misra Vs
Sita Ram. (Paras 27, 42)

Writ Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,873 of 66,633. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39873 for what follows._

1 All. Sabhai & Anr. Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
725
Kharanja (road). Thus, the demand of
petitioner no.1/Smt. Rama Devi to provide
land over Kharanja (road) connecting
Hardoi-Bilgram Road is unsustainable in
law.

For the reasons aforesaid, the present
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 725
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ-B No. 2255 of 1982

Sabhai & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C., Faizabad ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
H.S. Sahai, Kamlesh Kumar, Ravindra Kumar
Yadav, Vijay Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., A.N. Verma, I.D. Dwivedi, K.P. Singh,
Riyaz Ahmad, S.P. Singh,Sachindra Dwivedi,
Shachindra Dwivedi

Civil Law - U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 -
Section 180(2) - Adverse Possession -
Burden of Proof - The petitioners claimed
rights over Khata No. 162 based on adverse
possession, relying on entries in Khasra and
Khatauni - Held, the burden lies on the claimant
to prove adverse possession through evidence
that entries were made per the U.P. Land
Records Manual, including issuance and service
of Form PA-10 to the recorded tenure holder
and Land Management Committee; petitioners
failed to produce such evidence, rendering
entries legally invalid, as per Gurmukh Singh Vs
Dy. Director of Consolidation. (Paras 24, 33, 35,
37, 44)

Evidentiary Value of Revenue Entries - The
petitioners relied on Khasra and Khatauni entries
to establish possession - Held, entries in
column-9 of Khatauni lack evidentiary value if
not made in accordance with Paragraphs A-80, A81, and 102-C of the U.P. Land Records Manual,
particularly without proof of PA-10 service;
petitioners' failure to produce PA-10 or testimony
from revenue officials invalidated their claim, as
supported by Jamuna Prasad Vs Dy. Director of
Consolidation. (Paras 21, 24, 35, 37, 44)

Estoppel - Failure to Challenge Findings -
The petitioners did not challenge the Assistant
Settlement Officer's finding that Dukhi and
Khelawan were sons of Ghurai in the revision
before the Deputy Director of Consolidation -
Held, they are estopped from raising this issue
in writ proceedings, as the finding became final,
per Balchan Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation.
(Paras 24, 32)

Framing of Issues - Adequacy - The
petitioners argued that the Consolidation Officer
failed to frame proper issues on adverse
possession - Held, Issues 1 and 2 framed by the
Consolidation
Officer
adequately
addressed
possession
and
sirdari
rights,
requiring
petitioners to prove lawful possession via PA-10
evidence, which they failed to do, as clarified in
Sattan Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation. (Paras
13, 40)

Oral Evidence and Adverse Possession -
The petitioners contended that oral evidence
supporting possession was ignored - Held, while
adverse possession can be proved by oral and
documentary evidence, the absence of PA-10
evidence and failure to produce revenue officials
to substantiate entries rendered oral evidence
insufficient, as per Mangu Vs Dy. Director of
Consolidation. (Paras 26, 36, 39)

Unrebutted Averments in Writ Petition -
The
petitioners
argued
that
unrebutted
averments in the petition should be deemed
admitted - Held, findings in consolidation
proceedings must be based on evidence before
the authorities, not uncontroverted writ petition
averments; petitioners failed to demonstrate
perversity in the authorities' findings, as per
Azadar Hussain Khan Vs Dy. Director of
Consolidation. (Paras 26, 41)

U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 - Section 180(2) -
Inapplicability - The petitioners raised a plea
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 180(2) regarding the absence of
an eviction suit - Held, this plea is misconceived
as it was not raised in pleadings and the case
rested solely on adverse possession, which
requires proof of hostile possession, not merely
absence of eviction, as per Ram Naresh Misra Vs
Sita Ram. (Paras 27, 42)

Writ Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1.
Gurmukh
Singh
Vs
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation, 1996 SCC OnLine All 823

2.
Jamuna
Prasad
Vs
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation, 1980 SCC OnLine All 569

3. Balchan Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation,
2015 SCC OnLine All 1080

4. Sattan Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation, 2017
SCC OnLine All 1829

5. Mangu Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation, 2010
SCC OnLine All 3233

6. Azadar Hussain Khan Vs Dy. Director of
Consolidation, 2021 SCC OnLine All 580

7. Ram Naresh Misra Vs Sita Ram, 2021 SCC
OnLine All 425

8.
Indrapal
Singh
Vs
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation, 2019 SCC OnLine All 4553

9.
Shashi
Prabha
Vs
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation, 2020 SCC OnLine All 636

10. Hazari Vs Mathura, 1991 SCC OnLine BoR
(UP) 27; 1992 RD 79

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the State-respondents as
also Sri Shachindra Dwivedi, learned
counsel for the contesting opposite party.

2. By means of present petition, the
petitioners have assailed the order dated
25.09.1978 and 27.03.1982 passed by the
respondent
No.2-Assistant
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation,
Faizabad
and
respondent
No.1-Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Faizabad, respectively.

3. Before proceeding in the matter,
this Court finds it appropriate to indicate
that Writ Petition No.1220 (Consolidation)
of 1981 was filed by Musai, Ram Prasad
and Bans Raj and the same was dismissed
on 28.04.2016 and has not been restored.

4. Brief facts of the case are to the
effect that the name of one Ghurai was
recorded in the revenue record related to
Khata No.162 situated at Nathmalpur,
Hateria,
Pargana-Birhar,
Tehsil-Tanda,
District-Faizabad now Amebdkar Nagar.
The land/plots indicated in Khata No. 162
is the subject matter of this petition. These
plot(s) have been indicated in the impugned
order dated 27.03.1982 passed by Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
as
Gata
No.301/1, 301/2, 301/3, 301/4, 313, 362/1,
362/2, 537/1, 537/2, 523/1 523/2, 552/1,
552/2 and 373/2 and total area 2-17-0.

5. In the basic year Khatauni of Khata
No. 162 names of Dukhi and sons of
Khelawan namely Ram Hans, Ram Singar
and Ram Pyare were recorded.

6. It is to be noted that the case of the
side opposite is that the Ghurai was the
father of Dukhi and Khelawan.

7. With regard to Khata No.162
before the Consolidation Officer one
objection was filed present petitioners and
another objection was filed by Musai and
Others. Petitioners in their objection
indicated that the name of Dukhi S/o
Ghurai and Ram Hans, Ram Singar, Ram
Pyare all sons of Khelawan have wrongly
1 All. Sabhai & Anr. Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
727
been indicated in the revenue record. In the
objection filed by the petitioners they also
stated that entry in the revenue record in
favour of Dukhi and legal heirs of
Khelawan in fact is a forged entry as father
of Dukhi and Khelawan was Shiv Baran. In
support of this contention they filed the
copy of statement dated 23.09.1966 of
Dukhi recorded in Case No. 1977 under
Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953")
and copies of compromise filed in Case No.
9006 and 894 under Section 9 of the Act of
1953 related to Khata No. 86 situated at
Village-Tikuria Bujurg.

8. It is apparent that before the
Consolidation Officer the claim of the
petitioners was mainly based upon the plea
of adverse possession.

9. In another objection preferred by
Musai and one Smt. Karma, they claimed
their right over Khata No.162 by saying
that they are actual legal heirs of Ghurai.
Smt. Karma claimed herself as daughter of
the Ghurai and Musai claimed himself as
son of Karma.

10. With regard to claiming rights
over the land, in issue i.e. Khata No.162, as
stated, the petitioners based their claim on
entries in Khasra of Fasli Year(s) 13661377, 1366-1367 and 1377-1379 and
Khatauni of Fasli Year 1359.

11. It is indicated that Khasra and
Khatuani bears an entry based upon PA-10
with date and dairy number. On the basis of
entries in the Khasra and Khatauni the
petitioners claimed themselves as recorded
Sirdar.

12. The oral evidence was adduced by
the petitioners to support their claim. On
the other side, the oral evidence was also
adduced by Smt. Karma, Musai and others
before the Consolidation Officer. Dukhi S/o
Ghurai and sons of Khelawan also adduced
the evidence before the Consolidation
Officer.

13. It would be apt to refer here that
for
proper
adjudication
of
the
case/objections the Consolidation Officer
framed following four issues:-

"पक्ष ं के उपर क्त कथन ि आपवत्तय ं के
आर्ार वनम्न वबन्दु बनाये गयेः-

1. क्या श्री सभई ि छवि नाथ पुिगण
िहदेिगण संख्या- 301 गािा संख्या 301/3,
353/1, 362/1 ि 573/2 ि 537/2 के आवद चक
के भूवि पर सीरदार है।

2. क्या श्री सभई ि छविनाथ उपर क्त गािा
संख्या 1 की 1 क वदये गये भूवि कब्जे के
आर्ार अपनी कायणिाही सीरदार है।

3. क्या गािा संख्या 162 पर की भूवि पर
अंवकत खातेदार ं के नाि फरजी दजण है और इस
भूवि के सब भाग पर िाविक िुसई आवद है।

4. क्या िुसई आवद घुरई की िडकी के
िडके हैं और घुरई िाररस है सबूत के आर्ार
पर आराजी वनजाई वदया जाता है अन्य वकसी
तनकी पर बि नहीं वदया गया है तनकी 2-4 श्री
िुसई ने अपने बयान ं िें बताया है वक वििावदत
भूवि घुरई की थी। वजसके िाि िडकी करिा
थी ज विजयी से व्याही थी और उनसे िह तथा
राि प्रसाद ि बंश राज नाबाविग थे और उनकी
िाूँ बेिा थी अतः घुरई के िरने पर खेती की
देखभाि हेतु ही दुखी ि खेिािन क बुिा विया
था। वजन्ह ंने र् खा देकर घुरई के स्थान पर
अपना नाि बतौर िाररस घुरई के िडके बना
कर अपने नाि दजण करा विया। यह वक दुखी ि
खेिािन ग्राि विक ररया बुजुणग के रहने िािे हैं
और जब ये बंस राज ि राि प्रसाद बाविग हुए है
उन्ह ंने स्वयं भूवि ज तना आवद शुरू कर वदया
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
और प्रवतिादी से क ई सम्बि नहीं रहा है इन्ह ंने
वनम्न बंशाििी दी हैः-

अन्तू

।

।--------------------।--------------------।-

राि किी घुरई
 िाता

।

िु० करिा िडकी

 ।

-।-----------------।---------------------।-

िुसई

राि प्रसाद
बंश राज

श्री िुंसई के इन बयान ं की पुवष्ट िें िु०
करिा ने अपने बयान ं िें बताया है वक िह घुरई
की िडकी ि विजयी की पत्नी तथा िुसई आवद
की िाता है।"

14. It would also be apt to refer here
that in the order of Consolidation Officer
it has specifically been indicated that no
other issue was pressed by the parties
appearing
before
the
Consolidation
Officer.

15. The Consolidation Officer, upon
due consideration particularly favourable
entries made in the documents filed by
the petitioners observed rather held that
the entry in favour of Dukhi and Others is
completely forged. The Consolidation
Officer also rejected the claim of Smt.
Karma, Musai and Others, who filed
second
objection
before
the
Consolidation Officer under 9-A of the Act
of 1953.

16. The order of Consolidation
Officer dated 29.11.1977 was challenged
by Musai and Others as also by Dukhi and
Others by preferring the appeal(s) before
the Settlement Officer of Consolidation,
Faizabad now Ayodhya.

17. The appeal filed by Dhukhi was
registered as Case No.11718 (Dukhi &
Others vs. Musai & Others) and the appeal
filed by Musai & Others was registered as
Case No.11962 (Musai and Others vs.
Dukhi and Others). The appeals filed
under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953
were clubbed together and decided by the
Appellate
authority
namely Assistant
Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide
common order dated 25.09.1978.

18. The Assistant Settlement Officer
of Consolidation after considering the oral
statement of Smt. Karma and Musai
specifically observed that Ghurai and
others whose claim was based upon the
entry in the revenue record of basis year
were residing with Ghurai and Musai and
Others were not in possession of the
property in dispute recorded in the
Khatuani of Khata No.162.

19. The Assistant Settlement Officer
of Consolidation also observed that Musai
and Others in their claim have specifically
stated that Dukhi and Others were in
possession of the property, in issue, for last
10 years and after considering these
statement(s) held that Smt. Karma failed to
establish that she is the daughter of Ghurai,
whereas Dukhi and Khelawan are sons of
Ghurai. ]

20. The relevant portion of the order
dated 25.09.1978 passed by the Assistant
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, reads
as under:-

"दुखी िगैरह अपीिान्टस की तरफ से यह
तकण पेश वकया गया वक आराजी वनजाई घुरई की
पैदा करदगी है तथा अपीिान्ट घुरई के ही
िडके हैं ि िादी घुरई के िरने पर कावबज ि
दक्तखि हुए। विपक्ष िें िुसई िगैरह की तरफ से
1 All. Sabhai & Anr. Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
729
तकण पेश वकया गया वक आराजी वनजाई घुरई की
पैदाइश अिश्य है िगर घुरई के क ई िडका
पैदा नहीं हुआ िेवकन घुरई की िडकी श्रीिती
कम्सा उनके िडके िुसई राि प्रसाद ि बंशराज
हैं। घुरई के जीिन काि िें ही िुसई िगैरह घुरई
के साथ रह कर आराजी वनजाई पर कावबज ि
दखीि हुई तथा घुरई के िरने पर िुसई का
कब्जा दखि हुआ।

िुसई का भी कथन है वक दुखी ि खेिािन
क घुरई अपने साथ िे आये तथा अपने साथ
खेती बारी की देख भाि के वसिवसिे के विए
उनक रखा ि घुरई के िरने के बाद दुखी से
वििावदत भूवि पर गैर कानूनी नाि दजण करा
विया। जब वक दुखी का वििावदत भूवि पर
कब्जा दखि नहीं रहा। पक्षी ने यह स्वीकार
वकया वक आराजी वनजाई घुरई की ही पैदा
करदगी है। अपने बयान की पुवष्ट िें नकि
खतौनी 1337 फसिी खाता 63, 82 ि 9/3 ि
नकि खतौनी 1344 फ० खाता 10/3 ि 26/5
पेश है वजसिें आराजी वनजाई घुरई के नाि
वजिन 5 िें दजण है अतः उपर क्त प्रिाण ं से यह
स्पष्ट है वक आराजी वनजाई घुरई की है पैद
करदगी है। अपीिान्टस दुखी ने यह तक पेश
वकया वक आराजी वनजाई घुरई िगैरह की पैदा
करदगी है ि घुरई दुखी ि खेिािन के वपता है
घुरई के िरने के बाद उनका नाि िरासतन दजण
हुआ। अपने कथन की पुवष्ट िें नकि खतौनी
1360 फ० खाता 71 ि खाता 53/6, 65/99,
73/48 पेश वकया है।

वजसिें वििावदत भूवि पर अपीिान्टस दुखी
ि खेिािन पुिगण घुरई के नाि इन्द्राज है।
नकि खतौनी 1362 फ० खाता 43 ि 42/7 पेश
वकया है वजसिें दुखी के वपता का नाि घुरई ही
दजण है। उपर क्त प्रिाण ं से यह स्पष्ट है वक दुखी
ि खेिािन घुरई के ही िडके हैं। विपक्ष ने यह
तकण पेश वकया वक दुखी िगैर घुरई के िडके
नहीं है। िहज कागजात िें गित इन्द्राज है िुसई
िगैरह ने अपने कथन की पु्वष्ट िें क ई प्रिाण
पेश नहीं वकया बक्तल्क तकण पेश वकया वक दुखी
ग्राि विकररया बुजुगण के वशि बरन के िडके हैं
ि इस तकण की पुवष्ट िें नकि बयान दुखी पुि
वशि बरन वदनांक 23-9-66 िुकदिा नम्बर
1977 र्ारा 9 राि अितार बनाि दुखी ि नकि
सुिहनािा वदनांक 4-7-77 बाित उपर क्त
िुकदिा ि नकि सुिहनािा वदनांक 7-4-77
िुकदिा नम्बर 9006, ि 8940 र्ारा 9 बाित
खाता 86 ग्राि विकुररया बुजुगण पेश वकया है।
वजसिें दुखी िगैरह के वपता का नाि वशि बरन
विख गया है।

इसी इन्द्राज के आर्ार पर िुसई िगैरह का
यह कथन है वक दुखी ि खेिािन ग्राि विकुररया
बुजुगण के वशि बरन के ही िडके हैं। दुखी िगैरह
ने अपने बयान ं िें वशि बरन की आराजी से
अपना क ई सम्बि नहीं बताया तथा यह भी
बयान वकया वक यवद उसके नाि से उक्त जिीन
दजण भी है त िह िहज गित दजण है ि उसका
यह भी कथन है वक उक्त ग्राि िें दुखी पुि वशि
बरन करके दजण है। ि उसका यह कथन है वक
युक्त ग्राि िें दुखी पुि वशि बरन करके दजण है
जब वक िेरे वपता का नाि घुरही हैं। यद्यवप दुखी
िगैरह का यह तकण ि बयान न्याय संगत नहीं है
िेवकन दुखी के नाि 1360 फ० के पूिण से
वििावदत भूवि पर इन्द्राज है वजस पर उसके
वपता का नाि घुरई दजण है।

इस प्रकार इतने िम्बे असे के इन्द्राज क
िहज िौक्तखक साक्ष् से गित नहीं िाना जा
सकता है। िुसई िगैरह ने यह तकण पेश वकया
वक घुरई की िडकी श्रीिती करिा श्रीिती
करिा के ही िडके िुसई िगैरह ही हैं। िेवकन
िुसई िगैर ने श्रीिती करिा क घुरई की िडकी
सावबत करने के विए पैदा इशीनफि पेश नहीं
वकया है। जब वक दुखी िगैरह ने नकि पैदाइशी
वदनांक 3-2-1390 नकि पैदाइशी वदनांक 5-1010 ई० नकि पैदाइशी वदनांक 13-4-15 ई० पेश
वकया है।

वजसिें उपर क्त तीन ं पैदाइशी वतवथय ं िें
अन्तू के िडकी पैदा ह ना दजण है। अतः
उपर क्त नकि पैदाइशी परिाण ं से यह सावबत
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ह जाता है वक घुरई (िडका) के अिािा अन्तू
के तीन िडवकयां भी पैदा हुई ि दुखी िगैरह ने
तकण पेश वकया वक िौजूदा श्रीिती किाण ने ज
बयान वदया है ि उसक िुसई िगैरह घुरई की
िडकी बताते हैं िह घुरई की बहन है ज िर
चुकी है। श्रीिती करिा क घुरई की िडकी
सावबत करने का क ई प्रिाण िुसई िगैरह ने
पेश नहीं वकया।

िुसई िगैरह ने अपने िूि दािा वदनांक
13-11-75 िें यह स्वीकार वकया है वक घुरई
असाण 37, 38 साि हुए फौत कर गये अतः िुसई
के दािे के िुताविक घुरई 1930 ि 1935 ई० के
बीच िरे अतः उस सिय भी घुरई के िरने पर
िौजूदा िुसई िगैरह कानूनी िाररस नहीं ह ते हैं
िुसई के गिाह नेिारू थे ज ग्राि नसीरपुर वसंह
पट्टी के वनिासी हैं। उक्त गिाह ने अपने बयान
िें यह स्वीकार वकया वक श्रीिती किाण ने गिाही
देने के विए उससे कहा था िेवकन वििावदत
भूवि चौहद्दी की जानकारी उसक नहीं है। इस
प्रकार श्रीिती किाण क जब गिाह वनसाई जौजे
का वनिासी नहीं तथा श्रीिती किाण ि उसके
वपता की जानकारी ि उनकी पैदाइश के सम्बि
िें िह कुछ नहीं जानता त श्रीिती किाण स्वयं
पेश हुई हैं। तथा उसने अपने क घुरई की
िडकी बताया। तथा अपने बयान िें यह भी
बताया वक दुखी की िाता का नाि स नकिी है
ज ग्राि विकुररया बुजुगण िें रहती है िेवकन दुखी
ि खेिािन जब छ िे थे घुरई िे आिे ि घुरई के
िकान िें रहते हैं। िेवकन िुसई िगैरह ने अपने
दािे िें यह वदखाया है वक घुरई के िरने के 10
साि बाद दुखी िगैरह क खेती के इन्तजाि के
विए वनजाई िौजा िें िाया गया। ि उसके
विपरीत िुसई िगैरह की तरफ से यहाूँ बयान
वदया गया वक घुरई अपने जीिन िें दुखी ि
खेिािन क नाबाविगी की हाित िें अपने
िकान िें िे आये थे। तथा िुसई िगैरह का दािा
ि उसके गिाहान का बयान एक दूसरे के
विर र्ी हैं। श्रीिती किाण ने अपने बयान िें यह
भी स्वीकार वकया वक वििावदत भूवि का िगान
कभी नहीं वदया है। िुसई ने स्वयं अपने बयान िें
आराजी वनजाई की चौहद्दी एिं उस पर ब ई जाने
िािी फसि ं से अनावशज्ञता जावहर की है। तथा
यह भी स्वीकार वकया वक दुखी िगैरह घुरई के
ही िकान िें रहते हैं। िह स्वयं घुरई के िकान
िें नहीं रह या रही हैं तथा वििावदत भूवि की
िगान दुखी क देना बताया है। अतः िुसई
िैगरह के बयान ं से यह स्पष्ट है वक वनजाई िौजे
िें कभी नहीं रहे और न वििावदत भूवि पर
उनका कब्जा दखि रहा।

िुसई वनजाई िौजे के िुख्य नागररक प्रर्ान
ग्राि सभा क भी नहीं जानते हैं तथा यह भी
स्वीकार वकया वक इस ग्राि िें कभी वकसी क
ि ि नहीं वदया है अतः िुसई के स्वयं के बयान ं
से यह स्पष्ट ह जाता है वक वनजाई िौजे के
वनिासी नहीं हैं और न वििावदत भूवि पर उसका
कभी कब्जा दखि रहा है। िुसई िगरहा ने
अपने िूि दािे िें यह वदखाया वक उसकी िाता
श्रीिती किाण अपने ससुराि िें रहती थी तथा
िडका बाहर बगरज र ज रहता था। दुखी िगैरह
क आराजी वनजाई की देख भाि करने के विए
वनजाई िौजा िें घुरई के िकान िें रख विया था
इस विए दुखी िगैरह ने आराजी वनजाई पर
अपना नाि बतौर िाररस दजण करा विया। जब
वक दुखी िगैरह घुरई के िडके नहीं है। िुसई के
उपर क्त आर प वनरार्ार एिं असत्य प्रतीत ह ते
हैं जब वक िह स्वयं बाविग रहा तथा अपनी
जायदादें दीगर शख्स क (वििावदत भूवि की)
देखभाि करने के विए देने का क ई औवचत्य
प्रतीत नहीं ह ता है।

उपर क्त वििेचन के आर्ार पर श्रीिती
किाण घुरई की िडकी सावबत नहीं है तथा दुखी
ि खेिािन घुरई के िडके सावबत हैं।"

21. After holding that Dukhi and
Khelawan
are
sons
of
Ghurai,
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
proceeded to consider the case of the
present petitioners/appellants and after
considering the evidence as also Para 80,
1 All. Sabhai & Anr. Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
731
102-C of U.P. Land Record Manual and the
provisions pertaining to PA-10, Settlement
Officer of Consolidation in its order dated
25.09.1978, impugned herein, observed
that based upon the entry in the Khatuani in
absence of PA-10, the possession of the
property can not be considered to be valid
possession so far as the plea of adverse
possession is concerned. The relevant
portion of the same reads as under:-

"गािा संख्या 301/1, 0-4-16, ि 323/1, 03-13, ि 332/1, 0-3-0, 362/1 0-1-17, 373/2,
0-3-12, 537/2, 0-3-0 पर सुभई ि छविनाथ का
पडतािी कब्जा दजण है। विद्वान चकबन्दी
अवर्कारी स्तर पर सुभई िगैरह क गावसबाना
कब्जे के आर्ार पर सीरदारी िाना गया।
इसके भी विरुद्ध दुखी िगैरह ने अपीि दायर
की है अपनी अपीि िें विद्वान चकबन्दी
अवर्कारी के आदेश क वनरस्त करने के
वििरण दे वदये हैं।

िुसई िगैरह ने क ई अपीि प्रस्तुत नहीं
वकया। दुखी िगैरह की तरफ से यह तकण पेश
वकया गया वक आराजी वनजाई के हडपने के
विए ि अपीिान्टस के पेरशान करने की गरज
से िुसई िगैरह ने सुंभई िगैरह क अपनी
संवजश िें करके कब्जे का फरजी इन्द्राज करा
कर िुकदिा दायर कराया।

इसविए विद्वान चकबन्दी अवर्कारी द्वारा
सुभई िगैरह क िरासत िें दजण करने के
बािजूद िुसई िगैरह ने क ई अपीि दायर नहीं
की उपर क्त आर प ं का भिी-भाूँवत अिि कन
करने से यह बखूबी स्पष्ट ह जाता है वक िुसई
िगैरह ि सुभई िगैरहा क अपनी सावजश िें
करके िुकदिा िडा रहे हैं। जैसा वक िजह है
वक िुसई िगैरह अपनी कवथत नािा का
जायदाद पर सुभई िगैरहा के क्तखिाफ अपीि
प्रस्तुत नहीं की।

सुंभई िगैरह ने वििावदत भूवि पर अपना
कब्जा सावबत करने के विए नकि खसरा
1359फ० पेश वकया है वजसिें गािा संख्या
301/2, 0-3-1, 352/3 0-3-0, ि 537/2 0-3-0 पर
िारफत सहदेि िगैरह का नाि खाना कैवफयत
पर दजण है। नकि खसरा 1386 फ० िगायत
1370 फ० पेश वकया है वजसिें िौजूदा आराजी
वनजाई पर सहदेि के कब्जे का इन्द्राज िेखपाि
की वदनचयाण िय वदनांक के गािा संख्या 373/2,
क छ ड कर शेष नम्बरान पर कब्जे का इन्द्राज
है। 1367 फ० िें सहदेि के नाि कब्जे के
इन्द्राज ि 1368 फ० िगायत 1376 फ० सहदेि
के नाि श्रेणी 9 का इन्द्राज है। सहदेि ने नकि
खतौनी 1378 िगायत 1379 फ० वहस्सा द यि
पेश वकया वजसिें आराजी वनजाई पर सहदेि
पुि वबहारी का नाि श्रेणी-9 िें इन्द्राज है
उपर क्त कब्जे के इन्द्राज की िैंड ररकाडण
िैनुअि के पैरा ए-80 ि 102 -सी के तहत नहीं है
जानकारी असत्य काश्तकारान का कब्जा के
इन्द्राज है।

जररये प०क० 10 बजाये खास नहीं कराई
गयी। इस प्रकार गैर कानूनी कब्जे के इन्द्राज से
सुभई िगैरह क क ई कानूनी बि नहीं वििता
है कब्जे के इन्द्राज की जानकारी असि काश्त
करान के बजाय खस कराना आिश्यक ह ता है।
यवद कब्जे के गैर कानूनी इन्द्राज गैर कानूनी है।
तथा असि काश्त कार क कब्जे की जानकारी
जररये प० क० 10 बजाये खास नहीं कराया
गया। ऐसी क्तस्थवत िें वकतने की िम्बी अिवर् के
कब्जे के इन्द्राज क्य ं न ही वफर भी कावबजदार
क क ई कानूनी बि नहीं विि सकता और न
ही ऐसे कब्जे के इन्द्राज से सीरदारी का हक ही
सावबत ह ता है।

अतः उपर क्त वििेचन के आर्ार पर िुसई
िगैरह द्वारा प्रस्तुत अपीि बाित गािा संख्या
323 ि 353 खाररज की गयी ि दुखी िगैरह द्वारा
प्रस्तुत स्वीकार की गयी। विद्वान चकबन्दी
अवर्कारी द्वारा पाररत आदेश वदनांक 19-11-77
वनरस्त करके खाता वनजाई 162 की सम्पूणण भूवि
पर दुखी िगैरह का नाि पूिणित कायि ह । िाद
अिि दरािद पिाििी दाक्तखि दफ्तर ह ।"
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. After observing/holding aforesaid,
the
Assistant
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation dismissed the appeal of
Musai & Others and allowed the appeal of
Dukhi and Others and set aside the order of
Consolidation Officer, dated 19.11.1977.

23. Being aggrieved, the petitioners
preferred the Revision No.896/764/630
under Section 48 of the Act of 1953, which
was dismissed by the respondent No.1 vide
order dated 27.03.1982.

24. A perusal of the facts indicated in
the order dated 27.03.1982, which have not
been refuted by the petitioners by filing the
copy of the memo of revision, it is apparent
that before the Revisional Authority the
petitioners did not take plea related to the
finding of the Assistant Settlement Officer
of Consolidation, according to which,
Dukhi and Khelawan were held as sons of
Ghurai. On other hand, it appears that plea
of adverse possession was taken to claim
their rights over the land of Khata No.162.
The revisional authority, after observing
that there is no evidence on record from
which it can be deduced that the notice
(PA-10) was served on the main tenants,
held
that
the
claim
of
revisionist(s)/petitioners is not sustainable
and thereafter dismissed the revision vide
order dated 27.03.1982. The relevant
portion of the same reads as under:-

"Learned counsels for the parties were
heard and the records were perused
carefully. Revisionists set up two cases.
Their first case was that their father was in
virtual occupation of the land in 1356 F
1359 F and that on the basis of above
entries, they became Sirdar from Adhivasi
after
the
abolition
of
Zamindari.
Alternatively they pleased in their second
case tht they have perfected their title on
the basis of adverse possession. With
regard to the first case, the revisionists
have filed extract of Khasra for 1359 F in
which their father Sahdeva is recorded in
remarks column as Marfat Sahdeva. No
other evidence is there on the record in this
aspect. AS opposed to it, Dukhi and others
have filed extracts of Khatauni for 1356F
and 1359F. These pieces of evidence show
that they are recorded in class 4 in these
years over the disputed land. In addition to
this, they have filed rent receipts in
supports of their case. Musai etc. too have
admitted in their statements that Dukhi etc.
are in possession over the land. In view of
this there does not appear to be any force
in the first case of the revisionists. As
regards the case of adverse possession,
revisionists have filed extracts of Khasra
for 1366F to 1367F and again from 1368F
and 1379F and 1379F. In 1366F and 1367
F, Sahdeva is recorded qubiz with date
diary and PA-10 over plot No.373/2 and
qubiz over other plots. Same is the position
in 1367 F. There after he is recorded under
clause 9 upto 1379F. Lower appellate
Court has said that these entries are not in
accordance with the provisions Land
Record Manual. Revisionists have not
brought on record any piece of evidence to
show that PA-10 was ever served on the
main tenant. So these entries will certainly
not be termed to be regular. Another
important circumstances in this respect
leads me to conclude that the revisionists
have not come, with clear hands in this
court. Musai etc. directed their appeal
against Dukhi etc. but not against Sabhai
etc. for reasons best known to them. Lower
appellate court seems to be correct in
holding that Musai etc. are in collusion
with Sabhai etc. to grab the disputed land
one way or the other. In view of these
findings, I do not find any force in this
revision."
1 All. Sabhai & Anr. Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
733

25. In the aforesaid background of the
case, present petition has been filed
challenging the order(s) dated 25.09.1978
and 27.03.1982.

26. The submission of the learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
can
be
summarized in following manner:-

(i) Dukhi and Khelawan were not the
sons of Ghurai, as such, their claim was
unsustainable before the authorities under
the Act of 1953.

(ii) The entries made in copies of
Khasra
and
Khatauni
filed
by
the
petitioners before the Consolidation Officer
indicates and proves that the petitioners
were in possession of the land recorded in
Khata No.162 as these documents bear
particulars related to Form PA-10 i.e. diary
number, date and serial number and as
such, it was established before the
authorities under the Act of 1953 that the
petitioners were in possession as Sirdar and
being so the rejection of claim by the
Assistant
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation and the revisional authority
i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation is
unsustainable.

(iii) The proper issue to prove the
adverse possession was not framed by the
Consolidation Officer, as such, Assistant
Settlement Officer of Consolidation and/or
Deputy Director of Consolidation, if was of
the opinion that the petitioners failed to
prove adverse possession, then, the matter
should have been remanded back to the
Consolidation Officer for deciding the
matter afresh after framing proper issue
with regard to plea of adverse possession.

(iv)
The
averments
regarding
possession over the property specifically
indicated in the present petition has not
been refuted, as such, the same should be
treated as admitted and based upon the
same, interference in the impugned order
be made.

(v) The Assistant Settlement Officer of
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation completely discarded the
oral evidence adduced by the petitioners,
which
was
duly
considered
by
the
Consolidation Officer and based upon the
same, the Consolidation Officer passed the
order favourable to the petitioners.

(vi) The Assistant Settlement Officer
of Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation failed to consider the oral
evidence related to the issue of adverse
possession and it is settled law that adverse
possession can be proved by adducing oral
as also documentary evidence.

27. Sri Shachindra Dwivedi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party Nos.6 to 9 and Sri Hemant Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for the State
submitted as under:-

(i) In the instant case, the findings
recorded by the authorities under the Act of
1953 are to be looked into on the basis of
records
available
and
being
so
the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners
that
un-rebutted
averments
made in this petition should be taken as
true is completely fallacious.

(ii) It is settled law that plaintiff can
succeed only on the strength of his own
case and he can not succeed on the
weaknesses of the defense. Further, even
ex-parte proceedings or if the Court
proceeds to decide the matter under Order 8
Rule 10 of C.P.C., the duty is cast upon to
plaintiff to prove his case. The plaintiff has
to prove his case by adducing the evidence
and only then the Court would pass the
decree in favour of the plaintiff. In absence
of proper evidence, the Court would
dismiss the case.
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) In the instant case, challenging the
order(s) of the authorities under the Act of
1953 the petitioners have to satisfy on the
basis of pleadings and material available on
record that the findings recorded by the
authorities under the Act of 1953 are
completely
perverse.
For
showing
perversity, the petitioners have to indicate
the relevant pleadings and evidence related
to the same, as such, the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioners that uncontroverted averments in the petition be
taken as true and the judgment be set aside
is completely fallacious and unsustainable
in the eye of law.

(iv)
The
finding
of
Assistant
Settlement Officer of Consolidation which
is to the effect that the Dukhi and
Khelawan are sons of Ghurai was not
assailed by the petitioners in the revision
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, as such, they are estopped
from challenging this finding, at this stage,
under writ jurisdiction.

(v) The name of Dukhi and legal heirs
of Khelawan was there in the revenue
record of basic year of Khata No.162 and
the petitioners were before the authorities
under the Act of 1953 claimed their right
over the same based upon the plea of
adverse possession, as such, petitioners
were under obligation to prove their case
beyond doubt as per law which is required
to get a favourable order based upon the
plea of adverse possession.

(vi) To prove the adverse possession in
these proceedings, the law has already been
settled. The adverse possession in these
proceedings can be proved, as per law by
proving the facts that notice (PA-10), as per
the mode and manner prescribed, was duly
served upon the concerned, who, in the
present case, were Dukhi and Khelawan or
his legal heir and this burden was not
dischraged by the petitioners before the
Consolidation Officer and accordingly, the
Assistant
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation interfered in the order which
was subsequently affirmed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation.

(vii) At this stage, Shri Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioners stated that in fact,
the petitioners were in possession over the
property, in issue, i.e. property indicated in
Khata No. 162 and no suit for eviction
against the petitioners was filed as per law by
the person aggrieved and this aspect was also
not taken note of by the authorities who
passed the impugned orders. In this regard, he
has referred Section 180(2) of U.P. Tenancy
Act, 1939 (in short "Act of 1939).

(viii) Opposing the above contention
based upon the Section 180(2) of Act,
1939, learned counsel for side-opposite
says that the case of the petitioners was
based upon the doctrine of adverse
possession and as such, the petitioners were
required to prove their case by placing
appropriate evidence as per law which was
not placed.

(ix) To prove the facts pertaining to
PA-10, the petitioners were required to
place on record PA-10 as also oral evidence
of the official concerned to prove the fact
that the notice/P.A.-10, as per mode and
manner prescribed, was duly served upon
the recorded persons and in the instant
case, no revenue official was produced as a
witness and the case of the petitioners is
only based upon the entries in the Khasra
and Khatauni which are not sufficient
evidence so as to come to the conclusion
that the petitioners were in possession of
the property indicated in Khata No. 162.

(x) The Assistant Settlement Officer of
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation
rightly
held
that
the
petitioners have failed to prove the plea of
adverse possession and it is for the reason
that PA-10 was not produced.
1 All. Sabhai & Anr. Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
735

(xi) The petitioners were required to
prove the entries on the Khasra and
Khatauni placed by them before the
Consolidation
Officer
by
appropriate
witnesses and in the instant case, the
concerned
revenue
official
was
not
produced before the Consolidation Officer
to prove the entries over the said
documents related to PA-10. Thus, findings
recorded by the authorities under the Act of
1953 are justified and proper.

(xii) The Consolidation Officer while
deciding the objections framed proper
issues particularly Issue Nos. 1 and 2 and
according to these issues the petitioners
were under obligation to prove the
possession over the land in issue which can
be proved only by way of producing proper
evidence related to PA-10 and concerned
revenue official, however, the same was not
done by the petitioners.

(xiii) In view of aforesaid, the petition
is liable to be dismissed having no merits.

28.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has placed reliance on the
following judgments:-

(i) In the case of Shashi Prabha vs.
Dy. Director Of Consolidation Budaun
And 3 Others; 2020 SCC OnLine All
636; this Court observed as under:-

"22. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of
A.P., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221, the
Supreme Court was pleased to held that if
any judgement or order is obtained by fraud
it cannot be said to be a judgement or order.

The relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgement is quoted below :-

"19. Now, it is well-settled principle of
law that if any judgment or order is
obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a
judgment or order in law. Before three
centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke
proclaimed;"

Fraud
avoids
all
judicial
acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal."

(ii) Relevant paras of order passed by
Board of Revenue, U.P., in the case of
Hazari vs. Mathura; 1991 SCC OnLine
BoR (UP) 27; 1992 RD 79; are as under:-

"5. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties. Sri N.K. Saxena, learned
counsel for the appellant has contended
that the entry made in class 9 is not in
accordance with law and para A-80 and A81 of the Land Records Manual. His second
submission is that the court below has not
considered the oral evidence and this
failure on the part of the court below is
sufficient enough to set aside its order. Sri
R.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted that there was no
provision for the issuance of PA-10 from
1958 to 1965 and that the respondent was
in continuance possession from 1369 to
1381-F. The appellant had full knowledge
of the respondent's possession over the land
in dispute and that Shiv Prasad son of the
appellant used to issue receipts to the
respondents in token of receiving the rent
and so the plaintiff's right of asami, if any,
has been extinguished.

6. I have carefully considered the
arguments advanced before me and have
also perused the record. The learned
Additional Commissioner has allowed the
appeal on the ground that the possession of
the respondent is proved from the fact that
he got constructed a bandhi on the land in
dispute and that the respondent used to pay
rent regularly. He did not appear to have
had attached any importance to the
issuance of PA-10 on the ground that the
plaintiff
had
knowledge
about
the
possession of the respondent and the entry
made in class 9 was fictitious. In the
Khatauni 1366-68F, the appellant Hazari is
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recorded as asami in class 3 and the
respondent Gopal in class 9. In the Khasra
1369-80F, Gopal is recorded in class 9
against the plot in dispute. Similar entry has
been made in khasra 1381-88F. However,
there is no reference of issuance of PA-10 or
PA-24. Shiv Prasad, son of the appellant
Hazari issued rent receipts to the respondent
on 3.7.69, 3.3.75, 28.9.70 and 28.12.77 in
token of having received the rent. These
documents are sufficient to prove that the
respondent was in possession of the plot in
dispute. The rent receipt dated 17.9.68,
3.3.69, 18.5.75, 26.8.67, 18.1.71 and 3.9.75
and 13.12.78 go to show that he used to pay
rent to the Government. The respondent has
also filed form 17 issued by the Department
of Soil Conservation. In this form, the
respondent Gopal is shown as beneficiary of
the Bandhi to be constructed on plot No. 178,
185 and 249/7. Krishna Kumar Purohit,
Accountant
of
the
Soil
Conservation
Department appeared in the witness box and
deposed that the bandhi was constructed by
the department on plot No. 178, 185 and
249/7. He further deposed that the amount
incurred in the construction was also got
deposited from Gopal. The appellant has also
filed form 12 issued by the Soil Conservation
Department. This is a notice issued to the
plaintiff Hazari for the construction of bandhi
over so many plots including plot No. 178. It
is apparent from this document that the
actual beneficiary of the bandhi was the
respondent
who
paid
the
costs
of
construction. These documents strengthened
the case of the respondent that he was in
actual possession and that he was not a rank
trespasser."

(iii) In the judgment passed in Writ
Petition No. 2141 (Consolidation) of 1981
(Heshamullah
And
Others
vs.
Chakbandi, Pratapgarh And Others The
U.P. Sanchalak); this Court held as under:-

"Most importantly the D.D.C. has
been persuaded by the fact that the entry in
the revenue record pertaining to 1375F
allegedly for the first time in favour of
Abdul Majid was not in accordance with
the Land Record Manual as the requisite
diary number at P.A.10 entry are not
mentioned nor the process prescribed
under the Rules had been followed, but, he
failed to appreciate the fact that if the name
of Abdul Majid was existing as a Class9
entry in Khasra 1363F then at that time the
provisions contained in paragraph A-80
and A-81 of Chapter A-V of the Land
Records Manual had not come into force
and were inserted only subsequently vide
notification dated 18.1.1958 nor did he
consider as to what would be the effect of
this aspect of the matter if there was a
Khasra of 1363 F on record with a Class9
entry in favour of petitioner's father Abdul
Majid."

(iv) In the case of Mangu vs. D.D.C
& Others; 2010 SCC OnLine ALL 3233,
this Court observed as under:-

"I have very carefully gone through
the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2
and 3 but 1 find that that although the
respondent nos. 2 and 1 have given good
reasons for holding khasra entries could
not be relied upon as they were not made in
accordance with the provisions of Land
Record Manual and without issuing notice
of P.A. form 10, neither the Settlement
Officer Consolidation nor the Deputy
Director Consolidation after recording the
above finding examined the oral evidence
adduced by the petitioner. In Shiva Nandan
Vs. Board of Revenue. U.P. 1980 R.D. (73)
it has been held that the adverse possession
can be proved by documentary evidence or
by oral evidence. In Ram Naresh Vs.
Deputy Director Consolidation 1978 R.D.
1 All. Sabhai & Anr. Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
737
118, it has been held that oral evidence of
possession can not be ignored particularly
while reversing a finding. In 2007 (102) RD
240 Bhaua Vs.