1990 JTR(SC) 389
1993 AIR(SC) 1756 ; 1993 2 AllCJ 1161 ; 1993 2 ALT(SC) 29 ; 1995 1 BomCR(SC) 167 ; 1993 2 CurCC(SC) 119 ; 1993 2 JT 723 ; 1994 1 RRR 536 ; 1993 2 Scale 480 ; 1993 3 SCC 123 ; 1993 2 SCR 1015 ; 1993 2 SLJ 2219 ; 1992 KHC 640
K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Civil Appeal No.8386 of 1983, D/- 22-7-1990.
Hasan Ali and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
The nature of possession and the correctness of the analysis of possession were central to the court's decision.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.2 R.2(3), S.11, O.7 R.10
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
GOA DAMAN AND DIU AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT : S.2(7)(b), S.2(7)(a)
UTTAR PRADESH ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT : S.19
(A) The dispute is adjudicated under the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Order II Rule 2(3), Order VII Rule 10, and Section 11, alongside the Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, Section 2(7)(b) and Section 2(7)(a), and the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Section 19. These provisions govern the determination of co-tenancy rights, sirdari rights based on possession, and the hierarchy of authorities responsible for consolidation and settlement disputes in the context of land records and possession claims. The application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also central, as it provides the High Court with jurisdiction to issue writs challenging the orders of statutory authorities. The Supreme Court's role is to review whether the High Court correctly applied its powers under Article 226 in the face of clear evidence recorded by the consolidation authorities.
(B) The core legal principles involve the primacy of recorded evidence and the hierarchy of administrative findings in land disputes, the distinction between permissive and adverse possession affecting sirdari rights, and the limited scope of High Court judicial review under Article 226, which does not permit overturning factual findings unless they are manifestly erroneous.
Facts of the case:
Disputed plots were recorded in the basic year in the names of two respondents. Appellants filed objections claiming co-tenancy and sirdari rights based on possession. The matter was referred to consolidation authorities who rejected co-tenancy claims but allowed sirdari rights. Respondents appealed and revised successfully before the High Court, which set aside the orders. The Supreme Court reviewed the record to restore the consolidation authorities' orders.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in concluding that possession was adverse, determining instead that the possession was permissive and the consolidation authorities' appreciation of the records and evidence was correct and clear.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the concurrent orders of the consolidation authorities regarding possession and sirdari rights.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that where clear evidence of possession exists in the records of right and is supported by the findings of multiple administrative authorities, a High Court cannot substitute its view that the possession was adverse without sufficient justification, and must defer to the factual findings unless manifestly erroneous.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the orders of the consolidation authorities are restored.
(A) The dispute is adjudicated under the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Order II Rule 2(3), Order VII Rule 10, and Section 11, alongside the Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, Section 2(7)(b) and Section 2(7)(a), and the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Section 19. These provisions govern the determination of co-tenancy rights, sirdari rights based on possession, and the hierarchy of authorities responsible for consolidation and settlement disputes in the context of land records and possession claims. The application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also central, as it provides the High Court with jurisdiction to issue writs challenging the orders of statutory authorities. The Supreme Court's role is to review whether the High Court correctly applied its powers under Article 226 in the face of clear evidence recorded by the consolidation authorities.
(B) The core legal principles involve the primacy of recorded evidence and the hierarchy of administrative findings in land disputes, the distinction between permissive and adverse possession affecting sirdari rights, and the limited scope of High Court judicial review under Article 226, which does not permit overturning factual findings unless they are manifestly erroneous.
Facts of the case:
Disputed plots were recorded in the basic year in the names of two respondents. Appellants filed objections claiming co-tenancy and sirdari rights based on possession. The matter was referred to consolidation authorities who rejected co-tenancy claims but allowed sirdari rights. Respondents appealed and revised successfully before the High Court, which set aside the orders. The Supreme Court reviewed the record to restore the consolidation authorities' orders.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in concluding that possession was adverse, determining instead that the possession was permissive and the consolidation authorities' appreciation of the records and evidence was correct and clear.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the concurrent orders of the consolidation authorities regarding possession and sirdari rights.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that where clear evidence of possession exists in the records of right and is supported by the findings of multiple administrative authorities, a High Court cannot substitute its view that the possession was adverse without sufficient justification, and must defer to the factual findings unless manifestly erroneous.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the orders of the consolidation authorities are restored.
JUDGMENT :- This appeal is from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow dated 20-8-1980 in Writ Petition No. 648 of 1978. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition setting aside the concurrent orders of all the three consolidation authorities holding that the writ petitioners, Respondents 5 and 6 herein, were entitled to get back possession.
2. The disputed plots were entered in the basic year in the name of Respondents 5 and 6, Yar Mohammed and lqbal Mohammed and on publication of basic year records, the appellants Hasan Ali, Nazar Ali and Maghul Ali filed objections claiming the co-tenancy right in respect of Khata No. 365. They also claimed sirdari rights over 1/ 3rd share of the plots in Khata No. 365 on the basis of possession. There being dispute between the parties the matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer before whom parties tendered oral and documentary evidence in respect of their cases. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of co-tenancy rights but allowed the claim as to sirdari rights on the basis of recorded possession. Against the said order, the Respondents 5 and 6 filed appeal before Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the same having been dismissed they filed a revision application which too was dismissed.
3. The High Court held that the view as to possession taken by all the three consolidation authorities was manifestly erroneous inasmuch as the possession could have been only permissive and not adverse. We have perused the orders of the two consolidation authorities namely, the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director and find that the concurrent finding was based on correct appreciation of the records of right and of the evidence on record. The High Court itself observed that entries were found in the names of the appellants. On perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court, we are of the view that High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was not justified in arriving at a contrary conclusion in face of the clear evidence of possession and entries in the records of right sufficiently discussed by the three consolidation authorities. We do not agree with the analysis of the High Court as to the nature of the Appellants possession. We, accordingly, set as side the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the consolidation authorities.
4. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.