# Shahid Hussain v. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 196
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-22
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 2398 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shahid-hussain-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-ors-50997
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Arun Kumar Srivastava, C.S.C., Dharm Vir
Jaiswal,
Harsh
Vikram,
Manoj
Kumar
Sharma, Shri Ram Pandey

(A) Land Laws and Specific Performance -
Agreement
to
Sale
and
Adverse
Possession
-
Concurrent
findings
of
Revenue Courts under challenge - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 - Section 209 - Ejectment of
persons occupying land without title ,
Section 210 - Consequence of failure to
file a suit under Section 209 - Section 229B - Suit for declaration of rights -
Executory
Contract
-
Permissive
Possession - Adverse Possession - Specific
Performance - Provisions of Sections 209
and 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 do
not apply to cases where possession is
permissive, such as under an executory
contract of sale -Possession under an
executory contract of sale is permissive
and
does
not
constitute
adverse
possession.(Para - 15,17,18)

Petitioner claimed possession over a plot under
an agreement to sell executed in 1973 - with
partial payment made and possession given -
sale deed was never executed - Petitioner filed a
suit for specific performance in 2011 - later
sought declaration under Section 229B of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
- dismissed by three revenue courts - claiming
ownership based on adverse possession. (Paras
- 2 to 9)

HELD:- Possession under an agreement to sale
is permissive, not adverse, and thus cannot
form the basis for claiming title under Section
210 of the Act. Petitioner failed to establish
adverse possession or ownership under law. No
ground to interfere in concurrent findings of
three Revenue Courts. (Para - 18,19)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claim of appellants/contesting respondents
on land in dispute i.e. their alleged title is
highly disputed. Their claim is essentially
based on a revenue entry which is under
Class 10-A (non occupancy tenants) in a
Non Z.A. land whereas from the documents
on record which are more than 30 years
old, produced from a proper custody has a
presumptive value that land in dispute was
granted to predecessors of appellants on
lease under Government Grants Act which
was not extended after 1997.

30. A simple denial on behalf of
appellants/contesting respondents to said
document could not be accepted especially
when they have never filed any suit under
U.P. Tenancy Act to crystalize their rights,
therefore, I am of considered opinion that
in view of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy
(supra), since title is highly disputed,
therefore,
relief
sought
for
interim
injunction is rightly rejected by trial Court.
Therefore,
there
is
no
illegality
in
impugned order, hence, present FAFO
stands dismissed.

31. So far as present writ petition is
concerned, State/Irrigation Department has
approached this Court after about 5 years,
though explanation mentioned in writ
petition is not happily worded except
reference to some judgments on issue. Still
considering that above referred facts clearly
depicts
that
appellants/contesting
respondents have not able to prove their
title on basis of above referred entry as well
as that Revisional Court, on one hand,
returned a finding that impugned order
therein was passed without hearing the
appellants/revisionists but on other hand,
returned a finding that long revenue entry
could
not
expunged
in
a
summary
proceedings
without
appreciating
the
documents placed before it as well as their
legal value and the law on issue, therefore,
Court is of considered opinion that
impugned order in present form passed by
Board of Revenue does not survive, hence,
set aside and matter is remitted back to
Board of Revenue to decide the same fresh
and in case it is found that matter was
required
to
be
heard
by
affording
opportunity to both parties which was not
granted by S.D.M. while passing the order
dated 22.08.2016, the matter may be
remitted back to said Authority or if the
Board of Revenue thinks fit that issue can
be decided by Board itself, a reasoned
order will be passed after hearing rival
parteis expeditiously, preferably within six
months.

32.
In
overall
circumstances,
connected FAFO stands dismissed and
present writ petition stands allowed in part
with above observations.

33. This order will not come in the
way if the rival parties approach concerned
Court under U.P. Tenancy Act to crystalize
their right in accordance with law, if so
advised.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 196
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ- B No. 2398 of 2019

Shahid Hussain ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
11 All. Shahid Hussain Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
197
Arvind Srivastava, Deepak Kumar Pandey,
Krishna Kumar Singh, Rituvendra Singh
Nagvanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Arun Kumar Srivastava, C.S.C., Dharm Vir
Jaiswal,
Harsh
Vikram,
Manoj
Kumar
Sharma, Shri Ram Pandey

(A) Land Laws and Specific Performance -
Agreement
to
Sale
and
Adverse
Possession
-
Concurrent
findings
of
Revenue Courts under challenge - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 - Section 209 - Ejectment of
persons occupying land without title ,
Section 210 - Consequence of failure to
file a suit under Section 209 - Section 229B - Suit for declaration of rights -
Executory
Contract
-
Permissive
Possession - Adverse Possession - Specific
Performance - Provisions of Sections 209
and 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 do
not apply to cases where possession is
permissive, such as under an executory
contract of sale -Possession under an
executory contract of sale is permissive
and
does
not
constitute
adverse
possession.(Para - 15,17,18)

Petitioner claimed possession over a plot under
an agreement to sell executed in 1973 - with
partial payment made and possession given -
sale deed was never executed - Petitioner filed a
suit for specific performance in 2011 - later
sought declaration under Section 229B of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
- dismissed by three revenue courts - claiming
ownership based on adverse possession. (Paras
- 2 to 9)

HELD:- Possession under an agreement to sale
is permissive, not adverse, and thus cannot
form the basis for claiming title under Section
210 of the Act. Petitioner failed to establish
adverse possession or ownership under law. No
ground to interfere in concurrent findings of
three Revenue Courts. (Para - 18,19)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
1. Puttu Singh & ors. Vs Kirat Singh & ors., 1966
R.D. 42
2. Bharit & ors. Vs The Hon'ble B.O.R, U.P. at
Alld. & ors., AIR 1973 ALL. 201
3. Achal Reddy Vs Ramakrishana Reddiar & ors.,
(1990) 4 SCC 706

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

Factual Matrix

1. An agreement to sale dated
12.11.1973 was executed by father of
original
Respondent-4
in
favour
of
petitioner with regard to plot in dispute i.e.
plot no. 1141, area 1 acre 07 dismal,
located at Village Pakbara, Tehsil and
District Moradabad, for Rs. 9,000/- out of
which Rs. 7,000/- was paid and possession
of property was given to petitioner and rest
of Rs. 2000 was required to be paid at the
time of execution of sale deed.

2. Petitioner remained silent for many
decades and kept waiting for execution of
sale-deed and finally filed a suit for specific
performance in the year 2011. The relevant
relief
sought
in
suit
is
mentioned
hereinafter :-

" (अ) यह कक वादी द्वारा योजित
प्रस्तुत म लवाद हेतु संववदा के ववननददटष्ट
अनुपालन की आज्ञजप्त पाररत की िाकर
प्रस्तुत म लवाद के प्रनतवादी को आदेश
ददया िाये कक वह न्यायालय द्वारा
अनुमन्य अवचध के अन्दर वादी के पक्ष में
ननष्पाददत ववक्रय अनुबन्ध पत्र ददनांककत
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12.11.1973 के अनुपालन में वादी से ववक्रय
प्रनतफल की शेष धनरासश अंकन रूपये
2000/- (दो हिार) प्राप्त कर प्रस्तुत म लवाद
में वखणटत सम्पवि कृवष भ सम गाटा क्रमांक
141 जिसका क्षेत्रफल 0-4330 हे० तथा
भ रािस्व अंकन रूपये 21-40 पैसे जस्थत
ग्राम पाकबडा तहसील व िनपद मुरादाबाद
का ववक्रय पत्र वादी के पक्ष में ववचधवत
रूप
में
ननष्पाददत
कराकर
कायाटलय
उपननबंधक,
मुरादाबाद
में
ननयमानुसार
पंिीकृत करा दे, प्रनतवादी द्वारा उक्त में
ववफल रहने के पररणामस्वरूप न्यायालय
की सहायता से उक्त वखणटत प्रश्नगत
सम्पवि कृवष भ सम गाटा क्रमांक -1141
जिसका क्षेत्रफल- 4330 हे० तथा भ रािस्व
अकंन रू० 21.40 पैसे जस्थत ग्राम पाकबडा
तहसील व िनपद मुरादाबाद का ववक्रय पत्र
वादी के पक्ष में ननष्पाददत ककया िाकर
ननयमानुसार उपननबन्धक, मुरादाबाद में
पंिीकृत कराकर उक्त वखणटत सम्पवि /
कृवषभ सम पर वास्तववक भ स्वामी एवं
संक्रमणीय भ समधर के रूप में पुनः
सांकेनतक रूप में अचधपत्य स्थावपत करा
ददया िाये।"

3. The above suit is still pending. An
Amin's report dated 16.08.2017 submitted
in said suit is placed on record that the
petitioner is in possession of plot in
dispute.

4.
In
the
same
year
original
Respondent-4 has filed a suit for permanent
injunction against petitioner, which is also
still pending. An Amin's report dated
30.05.2011 was submitted in said suit is
also
on
record
that
petitioner
has
possession over plot in dispute.

5. In the same year, petitioner has also
filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1950") that he be declared "संक्रमणीय
भ समधर काश्तकार" over plot in dispute
since his possession on plot in dispute was
more than 12 years and that original
contesting respondent has failed to execute
agreement for sale. In written statement
contesting defendant/original contesting
respondent denied execution of agreement
to sale.

6. In above suit following issues were
framed:-

"क- यह कक घोषणात्मक डडक्री
इस अमर की फरमाई िावे की वादी
प्रश्नगत आरािी काश्त गाटा सं० - 1141
रकबई 0.433 है० मौिा पाकबडा तहसील व
जिला मुरादाबाद व संक्रमणीय भ समधर
काश्तकार है तथा इसका अमलदरामद
कागिात माल में कराया िावे।

ख- यह कक वाद का हिाट एवं
खिाट वादी को प्रनतवादीगण से ददलाया
िावे।

ग- यह कक अन्य कोई अनुतोष
िो मुफीद वादी हो न्यायालय उचित समझे
वादी को ददलाया िावे।

7. The above suit was dismissed vide
order dated 17.09.2018 on ground that,
11 All. Shahid Hussain Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
199
agreement to sale was not executed and
even original contesting respondent had no
power to execute the agreement to sale,
since he was only a Sirdar, who could not
execute a sale-deed or agreement to sale
and possession if any, was only permissive
that with permission of contesting original
respondent/ original defendant. Relevant
part of it is reproduced hereinafter :-

"ववद्वान अचधवक्ताओं के तकों
को सुनने के पश्िात् वाद में ननधाटररत वाद
बबन्दुओं का ननस्तारण ननम्न प्रकार ककया
िाता है।

1. क्या वादी वववाददत सम्पवि पर
काबबि है और वादी कब्िे के आधार पर
वववाददत संम्पवि का स्वामी व भ समधर है।
यदद हाूँ तो उसका प्रभाव?

उक्त वाद बबन्दु को ससद्ध करने
का भार वादी पर है। वादी के द्वारा अपने
मौखखक साक्ष्य में स्वयं को व गवाह मौ०
याक ब व यशपाल ससंह को परीक्षक्षत कराया
है। वादी शादहद हुसैन ने जिरह में स्वयं
कहा है कक "प्रश्नगत मुआयदाबय किहरी
में सलखा गया था, पहले बताया कक घर पर
सलखा गया था। जिस ददन मुआयदाबय
सलखा गया उस ददन किहरी खुल रही थी
या बन्द थी मुझे याद नहीं मुझे यह भी
याद नहीं कक मुआयदाबय जिस ददन सलखा
गया उस ददन कौन-कौन लोग आये थे यह
मुआयदाबय रजिस्टडट कराया या नहीं इसकी
मुझे िानकारी नहीं है। मुझे यह भी नहीं
पता कक नन्हे अनपढ़ आदमी थे या नहीं
मुझे यह भी याद नहीं कक मुआयदाबय की
तहरीर पर नन्हे के अंग ठे हैं या हस्ताक्षर?
यह रूपये नन्हे की बीमारी के समय अकेले
में ददये थे नन्हे ने मुझे आरािी ननिाई का
कब्िा तहरीर सलखने के बाद ददया था।
वादी शादहद हुसैन जिरह में यह साबबत
नहीं कर पाये कक मुआयदाबय कहाूँ हुआ था
धनरासश 7000/- के सम्बन्ध में यह साबबत
नहीं कर पाये कक रुपये उसने नन्हे को
अकेले में ददये थे या ककसी के सामने ददये
थे। इस प्रकार मुआयदाबय का ननष्पादन
भली प्रकार ससद्ध नहीं है। िहाूँ तक
प्रश्नगत भ सम पर कब्िा होने के सम्बन्ध
में उसमें शादहद हुसैन ने स्वयं कहा कक
उनका कब्िा नन्हे की रिामन्दी से है। इस
सम्बन्ध में प्रनतवादी के ववद्वान अचधवक्ता
की ओर से प्रस्तुत ककये गये तकट पर बल
पाता ह ं कक काश्तकार की इिाित से हुए
कब्िे के आधार पर ककसी व्यजक्त के
भौसमक अचधकार पररपक्व नहीं होते। इस
प्रकार वादी अपने वाद पत्र में ककये गये
कथनों के गौसवाना कब्िे के आधार पर
प्रश्नगत भ सम का संक्रमणीय भ समधर
घोवषत ककया िाये ससद्ध नहीं है।

प्रनतवादी के ववद्वान अचधवक्ता
का यह भी तकट है कक यदद नन्हे द्वारा
प्रश्नगत भ सम का वादी के पक्ष में
मुआयदाबय सलखा भी गया होता तो उक्त
मुआयदाबय एक श न्य दस्तावेि की श्रेणी
में हुआ क्योंकक नन्हे अपने आिीवन
प्रश्नगत भ सम के सीरदार काश्तकार रहे
और सीरदार काश्तकार को भ सम के
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
सम्बन्ध
में
कोई
हस्तान्तरण
ववलेख
ननष्पाददत करने का अचधकार प्राप्त नहीं है।
उनका यह भी तकट है कक वादी के पक्ष में
मुआयदाबय होने की जस्थनत में भी उन्हें
प्रश्नगत भ सम पर कब्िे के आधार पर कोई
अचधकार प्राप्त नहीं होते। उन्होंने अपने इस
तकट के समथटन में आर.डी. 2017 पृष्ठ 71
राधा स्वामी सत्संग बनाम स्टेट आफ
य .पी. व आर.डी. 2005 (99) पृष्ठ 672
अशोक कुमार द्वववेदी बनाम अष्ठम अपर
जिला िि व आर.डी. 2015 (129) पृष्ठ 7
इन्रपाल देव बनाम डडप्टी डायरेक्टर ऑफ
कंसोलीडेशन, व आर.डी. 1985 पृष्ठ 292
ब्र ह्मा बनाम बोडट आफ रेवेन्य प्रस्तुत करते
हुए तकट ददया कक मुआयदाबय के आंसशक
अनुपालन में ददये गये कब्िे के आधार पर
धारा-164 जि०वव०अचध० के प्रावधान लाग
नहीं होते। मैं प्रनतवादी के ववद्वान
अचधवक्ता की ओर से प्रस्तुत ककये गये
तकों एवं उनकी ओर से प्रस्तुत की गयी
ववचध व्यवस्थाओं के आधार पर इनके तकों
में बल पाता ह ूँ और वादी के ववद्वान
अचधवक्ताओं के तकों में कोई बल नहीं
पाता ह ूँ। प्रश्नगत भ सम पर यदद वादी का
कब्िा मान भी सलया िाये तो भी वादी को
उसके आधार पर प्रश्नगत भ सम पर ककसी
प्रकार के भौसमक अचधकार प्राप्त नहीं होते।
इसके अनतररक्त पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध
उद्धरण खतौनी वषट 1417-1422 से स्पष्ट
है कक रािस्व असभलेखों में प्रश्नगत भ सम
प्रनतवादी श्री शमशुद्दीन पुत्र नन्हे ननवासी
ग्राम पाकबडा मुरादाबाद का नाम दिट िला
आ रहा है इस सम्बन्ध में वादी के द्वारा
सक्षम न्यायालय में भी कोई िारािोई नहीं
की
गई।
अतः
वाद
बबन्दु
संख्या-1
नकारात्मक रूप से वादी के ववरूद्ध ननणीत
ककया िाता है।

वाद बबन्दु संख्या -2- क्या वादी
का वाद पोषणीय नहीं है।

इस वाद बबन्दु को ससद्ध करने
का भार प्रनतवादी पक्ष पर है। वाद बबन्दु
सं० 1 में की गयी वववेिना के आधार पर
वादी का वाद पोषणीय नहीं हो पाता है।
तथा यह वाद बबन्दु सकारात्मक रूप से
प्रनतवादी सं० -1 शमशुद्दीन के पक्ष में
ननस्ताररत ककया िाता है।

वाद बबन्दु संख्या -3- क्या वादी
अन्य कोई अनुतोष पाने का अचधकारी है।

वाद बबन्दु सं०-1 व वाद बबन्दु
सं०-2 की, की गई वववेिना पर वादी ककसी
अनुतोष को पाने का अचधकारी नहीं है।
अतः दावा वादी ननरस्त होने योग्य है,
ननरस्त ककया िाता है।
आदेश

सम्यक वविारोपरान्त दावा वादी
ननरस्त ककया िाता है। यदद कोई स्थगन
आदेश हो तो उसे ननरस्त ककया िाता है।
वाद अमल दरामद पत्रावली आवश्यक
कायटवाही दाखखल दफ्तर हो।"

8.
The
aforesaid
judgment
was
challenged by way of filing of an appeal
before
the
Commissioner,
Moradabad
11 All. Shahid Hussain Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
201
however, it was dismissed by order dated
25.05.2018.
Relevant
part
thereof
is
reproduced hereinafter:-

"उक्त तको एवं अवर न्यायालय
की सम्बजन्धत वाद पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध
असभलेखों के अनुसार मैं अपीलकताट के
ववद्वान अचधवक्ता के उक्त तको में कोई
बल नहीं पाता ह ूँ क्योंकक वादी द्वारा अपने
वाद पत्र में ककसी भी प्रक्रम में या ककसी
भी प्रस्तर में भ सम पर कब्िा मुखालफाना
का कोई तथ्य ही अंककत नहीं ककया, बजल्क
उनके द्वारा स्वयं अपने वाद पत्र के पैरा-
02 व पैरा-06 में यह तथ्य अंककत ककये
गये हैं कक प्रनतवादी के वपता नन्हें पुत्र
इतवारी के ववक्रय हेतु अनुबन्ध कर
धनरासश प्राप्त कर उन्हें इस भ सम पर
कब्िा करा ददया गया। इस प्रकार यह
कब्िा
ककसी
भी
प्रकार
से
कब्िा
मुखालफाना की श्रेणी में नहीं आता, बजल्क
स्वीकृनत से कब्िे की श्रेणी में आता है,
जिसके आधार पर कोई भी लाभ ददये िाने
का प्राववधान िमींदारी ववनाश अचधननयम
में नहीं है। इसके अनतररक्त, यह तथ्य
अत्यन्त महत्वप णट एवं प्रासंचगक है कक वषट
1973 जिस समय कक वादी ववक्रय हेतु
अनुबन्ध के सम्बन्ध में रसीद अवर
न्यायालय की पत्रावली पर कागि सं0-3/8
के रूप में प्रस्तुत करते हैं। तत्समय
प्रनतवादी के वपता उक्त भ सम के सीरदार थे
और सीरदार को भ सम को ववक्रय करने का
कोई अचधकार प्राप्त नहीं था, िबकक वषट
1975 तक समस्त धनरासश प्राप्त कर भ सम
को ववक्रय ककये िाने का कथन वादी द्वारा
ककया गया है। ऐसी जस्थनत में िबकक 1977
से प वट ककसी भी सीरदार को भ सम को
ववक्रय करने से प वट 10 गुना या 20 गुना
िमा कर भ समधरी के अचधकार प्राप्त करने
होते थे और कोई भी सनद या ऐसा कोई
तथ्य भी कभी वादी द्वारा अपने कथन में
अंककत नहीं ककया गया, तब ऐसी जस्थनत में
यह ववक्रय हेतु अनुबन्ध ककये िाने का या
ववक्रय ककये िाने का कोई भी अचधकार
प्रनतवादी सं0-01 के वपता को नहीं था।
यद्यवप उक्त अनुबन्ध एक अनुबजन्धत
ववलेख है िो साक्ष्य में ग्राह्य नहीं है.
परन्तु उसको भी ननष्पाददत ककये िाने का
कोई अचधकार प्रनतवादी सं0-01 के वपता को
नहीं था। इस कारण वादी अपने वाद को
साबबत करने में प णटतया ववफल रहा है,
जिसको अवर न्यायालय द्वारा ववसभन्न
वाद बबन्दुओं में की गयी वववेिना में स्पष्ट
ककया गया है। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा
पाररत आदेश एक न्यायोचित आदेश है।
अपीलकताट द्वारा ऐसे कोई साक्ष्य एवं तथ्य
प्रस्तुत नहीं ककये गये, जिससे कक अवर
न्यायालय के प्रश्नगत आदेश में ककसी
हस्तक्षेप का औचित्य पाया िाये। अतः
उक्त तथ्यों के पररप्रेक्ष्य में अपीलकताट की
अपील बलहीन होने के कारण ननरस्त ककये
िाने योग्य है।"

9. A challenge to aforesaid order was
referred preferred before the Board of
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Revenue by way of filing a second appeal,
which got dismissed by order dated
09.08.2018, at the stage of admission.
Relevant part of order is reproduced
hereinafter:-

"मैने
उभयपक्ष
के
ववद्वान
अचधवक्ता के तकों को सुनने एवं पत्रावली
पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों/असभलेखों का पररशीलन
ककया। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से ववददत
होता है कक नन्हे पुत्र इतवारी द्वारा शादहद
हुसैन को ववक्रय हेतु अनुबंध ककया गया
था, िबकक नन्हे वववाददत भ सम के सीरदार
थे उन्हे सीरदार की भ सम को अनुबंध/ववक्रय
का कोई अचधकार नहीं था और वादी शादहद
हुसैन द्वारा कोई ऐसा साक्ष्य अपने वाद में
प्रस्तुत ककये जिससे मे बल हो। दोनो पक्षों
को सुनने एवं ववचध व्यवस्थाओं के
परीक्षणों/वववेिना के आधार पर दोनों अवर
न्यायालयों द्वारा समान तथ्यों के आधार
पर आदेश पाररत ककया गया है। इसमें
हस्तक्षेप ककये िाने की आवश्यकता नहीं
है। इस प्रकार द्ववतीय अपील ग्राह्यता
स्तर पर ननरस्त ककये िाने योग्य है।

अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार
पर द्ववतीय अपील ग्राह्या स्तर पर ननरस्त
ककया िाता है। बाद आवश्यक कायटवाही
दाखखल दफ्तर हो। "

Argument on behalf of Petitioner

10. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Deepak Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner,
argued that since no proceeding was taken
by father of original defendant/ original
respondent under Section 209 of Act, 1950
(Ejectment of persons occupying land
without
title)
within
the
prescribed
limitation, therefore, its consequence as
provided under Section 210 of Act, 1950
would follow i.e. petitioner would become
Bhumidhar, however, all Revenue Courts
failed to appreciate it.

11. Learned Senior Advocate further
submitted that agreement to sale as well as
petitioner's possession over plot in dispute
was not disputed and whether vendor had
power to execute the agreement or not was
not the issue before Revenue Courts,
therefore, it was wrongly considered
against petitioner/plaintiff.

12. Petitioner/ plaintiff has perfected
his right on basis of adverse possession.
Learned Senior Advocate has placed
reliance on Puttu Singh and others Vs.
Kirat Singh and others, 1966 R.D. 42
and Bharit and others Vs. The Hon'ble
Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad
and other, AIR 1973 ALL. 201.

Argument
of
Contesting
Respondent

13. Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Pandey,
learned counsel appearing for Respondent4, i.e., contesting respondent by referring
Sections 209 and 210 of Act, 1950 argued
that petitioner would not fall within the
ambit of 'persons' mentioned in Section
209 of Act, 1950 since according to his
case he was put in possession on plot in
dispute with consent of vendor, whereas to
avail consequence of not filing a suit under
Section 209 of Act, 1950 as provided under
Section 210 of Act, 1950 would be
available only if possession was without
11 All. Shahid Hussain Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
203
consent of Bhumidhar, which is not the
case in hand.

Discussion and Analysis

14. Present case requires interpretation
of Sections 209 and 210 of Act, 1950 and
for
reference
both
are
reproduced
hereinafter:-

209.
Ejectment
of
persons
occupying land without title.-- (1) A
person taking or retaining possession of
land otherwise than in accordance with the
provisions of the law for the time being in
force; and-

(a) where the land forms part of
the holding of a bhumidhar, or asami
without the consent of such bhumidhar, or
asami;

(b)where the land does not form
part of the holding of a bhumidhar, or
asami without consent of the Gaon Sabha,
shall be liable to ejectment on the suit in
cases referred to in Clause (a) above of the
bhumidhar, or asami concerned and in
cases referred to in Clause (b) above of the
Gaon Sabha and shall also be liable to pay
damages.

(2) To every suit relating to a
land referred to in Clause (a) of subsection (1) the State Government shall be
impleaded as a necessary party."

"210. Consequence of failure to
the suit under Section 209.--If a suit for
eviction from any land under Section 209 is
not instituted by a bhumidhar or asami, or
a decree for eviction obtained in any such
suit is not executed within the period of
limitation provided for institution of such
suit or the execution of such decree, as the
case may be, the person taking or retaining
possession shall-

(a) where the land forms pail of
the
holding
of
a
bhumidhar
with
transferable rights, become a bhumidhar
with a transferable rights of such land and
the right, title and interest of an asami, if
any, in such land shall be extinguished;

(b) where the land forms part of
the holding of a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights, become a bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights I and the right,
title and interest of an asami, if any, in such
land shall be I extinguished;

(c) where the land forms part of
the holding of an asami on behalf of the
Gaon Sabha, become an asami of the
holding from year to year.

Provided that the consequences
mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c) shall not
ensue in respect of any land held by a
bhumidhar or asami belonging to a
Scheduled Tribe."

15. A plain reading of Section 209(a)
of Act, 1950, pre-supposes that possession
was without consent of Bhumidhar, Sirdar
or Asami or the Gram Sabha and if
possession of person was a permissive one,
a suit cannot be maintained under Section
209
of
Act,
1950,
therefore,
its
consequence as contemplated in Section
210 of Act, 1950 would not follow.

16. If case of petitioner is considered
in view of averments, it would be a case of
an "executory contract" since possession
was handed over only on basis of
"agreement to sale", awaiting complete
execution of remaining conditions of said
sale and only after its execution, it would
become a 'sale' when title of property got
vested with purchaser.

17. Supreme Court in the case of
Achal Reddy Vs. Ramakrishana Reddiar
and others, (1990) 4 SCC 706 has
considered
a
difference
between
an
'executory contract' and 'sale' and for
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reference its para 9 and 10 being relevant
are mentioned hereinafter :-

"9. There is no controversy that
the plaintiff has to establish subsisting title
by proving possession within 12 years prior
to the suit when the plaintiff alleged
dispossession while in possession of the
suit property. The first appellate court as
well
as
the
second appellate
court
proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff is
not entitled to succeed as such possession
has not been proved. The concur- rent
findings that the plaintiff had title inspite of
the
decree
for
specific
performance
obtained against him, when that decree had
not been executed are not assailed by the
appellant in the High Court. The appellant
cannot, there- fore, urge before us on the
basis of the findings in the earlier suit to
which he was not a party that Ex. A. 1 sale
deed is one without consideration and does
not confer valid title on the plaintiff. The
sole question that has been considered by
the High Court is that of subsisting title.
We have to consider whether the question
of law as to the character of the possession
Varada Reddi had between 10.7.1946 and
17.7.1947 is adverse or only permissive. In
the case of an agreement of sale the party
who obtains possession, acknowledges title
of the vendor even though the agreement of
sale
may
be
invalid.
It
is
an
acknowledgement and recognition of the
title of the vendor which excludes the
theory of adverse possession. The wellsettled rule of law is that if person is in
actual possession and has a right to
possession under a title involving a due
recognition of the owner's title his
possession will not be regarded as adverse
in law, even though he claims under
another title having regard to the well
recognised policy of law that possession is
never considered adverse if it is referable
to a lawful title. The purchaser who got
toto
possession
under
an
executory
contract of sale in a permissible charac- ter
cannot be heard to contend that his
possession was adverse. In the conception
of adverse possession there is an essential
and basic difference between a case in
which the other party is put in possession
of property by an outright transfer, both
parties stipulating for a total divestiture of
all the rights of the transferor in the
property, and in case in which, there is a
mere executory agreement of transfer both
parties contemplating a deed of transfer to
be executed at a later point of time. In the
latter case the principle of estoppel applies
estopping the transferee from contending
that his possession, while the contract
remained executory in stage, was in his
own right and adversely against the
transferor. Adverse possession implies that
it commenced in wrong and is maintained
against right. When the commencement and
continuance of possession is legal and
proper, referable to a contract, it cannot be
adverse.

10. In the case of an executory
contract of sale where the transferee is put
in possession of the property in pursuance
of the agreement of sale and where the
parties contemplate the execution of a
regular registered sale deed the animus of
the purchaser throughout is that he is in
possession of the property belonging to the
vendor and that the former's title has to be
perfected by a duly executed registered
deed of sale under which the vendor has to
pass on and convey his title. The
purchaser's possession in such cases is of a
derivative
character
and
in
clear
recognition of and in acknowledgement of
the title of the vendor. The position is
different in the case where in pursuance of
an oral transfer or a deed of transfer not
registered the owner of a property transfers
11 All. Beer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue Alld. & Ors.
205
the property and puts the transferee in
possession with the clear animus and on
the distinct understanding that from that
time onwards he shall have no right of title
to the property. In such a case the owner of
the property does not retain any vestige of
right in regard to the property and his
mental attitude towards the property is that
it has ceased to belong to him altogether.
The transferee after getting into possession
retains the same with the clean animus that
he has become the absolute owner of the
property and in complete negation of any
right or title of the transferor, his
enjoyment is solely as owner in his right
and not derivatively or in recognition of the
title of any person. So far as the vendor is
concerned both in mind and actual
conduct, there is a total divestiture of all
his right, title and interest in the property.
This applies only in a case where there is a
clear manifestation of the intention of the
owner to divest himself of the right over the
property. On the other hand in the case of
an executory contract the possession of the
transferee until the date of registration of
the conveyance is permissive or derivative
and in law is deemed to be on behalf of the
owner himself. The correctness of the
decision in Annamalai v. Muthiah (supra)
cannot, therefore, be doubted."

(Emphasis supplied)

18.
The
above
consideration
is
squarely applicable in present case on facts
also that a purchaser who got into
possession under an executory contract of
sale would be on only permissive in
character, he cannot contend that his
possession was adverse and it will remain
as a permissive possession in contradiction
to a possession in the case of sale.
Judgments
relied
by
learned
Senior
Advocate for petitioner in Puttu Singh
(supra)
and
Bharit
(supra)
would,
therefore, not be applicable in present case
since it was in regard to 'sale' and not in
regard to an 'executory contract'. Present
case is squarely covered by Achal Reddy
(supra) on facts as well as on law against
the petitioner's case.

Conclusion

19. The outcome of above discussion
is that there is no ground to interfere in
concurrent findings of three Revenue
Courts. Therefore, present writ petition is
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 205
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ- B No. 3143 of 1993

Beer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue Alld. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S. Sharma, A.K. Sharma, Ajai Shankar
Pathak, R.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
D.N. Tyagi, A.B.L. Gaur, Amar Jeet Singh,
Ashish Kumar Shukla, Deepak Sharma,
G.M. Tripathi, Gayyoor Ali, Girish Chandra
Shukla, H.N. Sharma, Mahima Kushwaha,
Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, P.S. Chauhan,
Raj Kamal Singh, Raj Kishore Yadav, Rajiv
Sisodia, S.C.

(A) Land Revenue Law - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 198(2) - Writ jurisdiction - Article