Tel. HC: Constitutional Validity of Section 38(2) of RP Act and Rule 5.7.1 of ECI’s Handbook Upheld  ||  MP HC: Power Exercised u/s 319 of CrPC Must Come Before Acquittal Order in Case of Joint Result  ||  Del. HC: Order of CIC Directing CBDT to Give Information Regarding Ram Janmabhoomi Trust Set Aside  ||  Ker HC: In Non-Performance of Agreement, Buyer to Get Charge Over Property For Paying Purchase Price  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Reinstate Ayurvedic Doctors Who Haven’t Attained 62 Years of Age  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Accrual Time For Taxing Income to Be Postponed Till Dispute’s Adjudication  ||  Supreme Court: Distributor Not An Agent But An Independent Contractor  ||  Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics    

Ram Pher Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Ors. - (High Court of Allahabad) (10 May 2018)

Once opposite parties were put in possession, then same will remain in possession over the land regarding which, decree has been executed

MANU/UP/1903/2018

Property

In facts of present case, an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, was filed by the opposite parties, claiming exclusive right in respect of Plot No. 779, alleging therein that a suit for pre-emption was filed by the objector and the said suit was later on, decreed and the decree of pre-emption was also executed prior to abolition of zamindari and they were put in possession. After execution of decree and being put in possession, the objectors were continuously in possession over the land in dispute and their title has not been disputed at any point of time and neither any suit was filed for their eviction nor their possession was challenged at any point of time by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner knew that, the possession of the objectors was continued and the right has accrued on the basis of decree of the Court and as such, the entries existing in favour of the Petitioner will not confer any right in his favour and if any right has accrued, then the same has no basis and neither the right can be ascertained without any basis in contradiction to the decree of preemption, decreed by the civil Court. The Consolidation Officer after taking into consideration the evidence of the parties, allowed the objection. An appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed. Against the appellate order, a revision was preferred, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, indicating that the right of the Petitioner was not substantiated under law and mere entry will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner. Hence, present writ petition.

The question of long standing entries existing in the name of the Petitioner from third settlement upto basic year and right being claimed on that basis, has to be considered in the light of the fact that, there is no contrary evidence available on record. If contrary evidence on record is available and if any entry is continued in ignorance of the decree of the Court and thereby the Petitioner's name continued, then such long standing entry cannot be said to be final in nature and neither the said entry will confer any right in favour of the Petitioner as the said entry is against the decree of the Court and also without any basis as the contrary evidence in the form of decree of the Court is available.

It is also to be taken into consideration that, the opposite parties were put in possession in execution of decree of the Court. Once the opposite parties were put in possession, then the opposite parties will remain in possession over the land regarding which, decree has been executed and if there is any other number, then the Petitioner can come forward and claim the same, but in the case in hand, there is no other land available except the land in which, opposite parties were put in possession in pursuance of execution of decree. The identity of the land has also been taken into consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the form of Khewat and the share of Ram Das. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition is dismissed.

Tags : LAND   POSSESSION   DECREE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved