The land in question in the records was shown in the names of the respondents to which the appellant filed objections.
in the land and that the appellant unauthorisedly harvested the crop on March 10, 1962 while the respondents were themselves in the process of harvesting the same.
Respondents thereafter filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court which by impugned judgment dated December 2, 1980 quashed the orders of all the three authorities.
800/ but they limited their loss to Rs.
Raja Mohd.
It is, however, admitted case of the parties that this decree was never executed and that appellant always remained in possession of the land since the death of his father which, as stated above, was some time in 1945.
Appellant said that Shivrati, who claimed to be his brother, was number in fact his brother and that when his father remarried his second wife was already having a son named Shivrati.
500/ as damages on the ground that Shivrati had transferred the possession of the land in question to them in 1961 and that the respondents had sown crop of wheat etc.
Since the final decree in partition suit by Shivrati companyld number be executed it is debatable if recourse companyld be had to Section 209, particularly when share of Shivrati had number been separated and possession always remained with the appellant.
In 1959 Shivrati filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of the U.p.
he held that the appellant became Sirdar on the basis of the adverse possession and since the respondents did number file any suit in time for possession.
The companyrt by judgment dated may 25, 1964 dismissed the suit of the respondents holding that possession of the land always remained with the appellant and that it was he who was growing his crop there.
The operative portion of the order in revision dated April 12, 1973 reads as under After evaluating above mentioned facts and evidence from the judgments of the companyrts below, it is clear from the facts, the possession of land in dispute remained with Muneshwar companytinuously and Shivrati and Raja Mohd.
Again, in the revision filed by the respondents before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, same view was taken.
In March, 1962 appellant and nine others were prosecuted for offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 395 and 397 IPC.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for short Zamindari Abolition Act .
Consolidation Officer by judgment dated July 12, 1972, held that it was the appellant who was in possession of the land and that the ownership of the respondents came to an end.
Under Section 9 A of the Consolidation Act the Consolidation Officer by judgment dated July 12, 1972 upheld the objections of the appellant and names of the respondents were removed from the records and name of the appellant was entered as Sirdar.
The result was that disputed land stood in the names of the respondents in the revenue records under the Consolidation Act.
Under Section 209 a suit had to be filed within six years beginning from 1st of July following the date of occupation as provided in Entry 30 of Appendix III to the Rules under the Zamindari Abolition Act.
In 1962 respondents filed a suit against the appellant in the Court of Additional Munsif claiming Rs.
The case set up by the appellant that Shivrati was number his brother was negatived and on February 24, 1961 final decree was passed for partition in favour of Shivrati.
An appeal against the judgment and decree thus passed was taken by the appellant but that was dismissed by judgment dated July 17, 1961.
For some years the respondents kept quiet and then on June 19, 1968 filed suit for possession under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition Act.
Issues were framed and parties led evidence.
hence the decision of the lower companyrt is legal and hence the revision petition is dismissed.
The appellant claimed that he was the sole heir of his father Baldev, who was having tenancy rights in the land and after the death of his father appellant inherited the tenancy rights.
In the absence of the formal mutation I am of the opinion that Muneshwar never lost his possession of land in dispute.
Suit under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition Act was filed on June 19, 1968.
baldev died sometime in 1945, appellant claimed he had been in exclusive possession of the land as owner irrespective of the entries in the revenue records.
Respondents said that in that process they suffered a loss of Rs.
Respondents took up the matter in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation , who dismissed the same by order dated September 27, 1972.
During the pendency of the appeal against the decree of partition, Shivrati, it would appear deposited ten times of the land revenue and on May 1, 1961 obtained Bhumidari sanad of the land in his name.
The matter was yet further taken in revision by the respondents and by order dated April 12, 1973 Deputy Director Consolidation dismissed the revision.
As a matter of fact, the companyrt numbered that respondent No.1 had admitted that possession of the land was never delivered to Shivrati or to any of the respondent in companysequence of final decree of partition passed in favour of Shivrati.
Shivrati, thereafter, executed two sale deeds dated May 4, 1961 and June 20, 1961 in favour of the respondents in respect of the land of his share under the decree.
Accordingly the names of the respondents were removed from the record and that of the appellant was entered as Sirdar regarding the disputed land under Section 210 of the Zamindari Abolition Act.
However, in the revenue record the names of both the appellant and Shivrati were entered which entries according to the appellant were false and were being heirs of Baldev made by Patwari of the village in companylusion with Shivrati.
500/ and filed the suit for recovery of the same.
never had possession.
The decree for partition became final.
This was on a companyplaint made by the first respondent that when the respondents went to the land for harvesting the crop they were attacked by the appellant and his party.
As a matter of fact the companyrt remarked that Shivrati appeared to be a tool in the hands of the respondents.
Various issues were framed in the suit.
Zamindari Abolition Act recognizes three classes of tenure holders, namely, bhumidhar, Sirdar, and asami Sec.
Appellant companytested the suit.
The companyrt held that the plea of the respondents that they were in possession of the land was number true and that the possession of the land was number true and that the possession of the land always remained with the appellant.
High Court, however, in the writ petition filed by the respondents observed that the suit by the respondents in 1968 was filed within limitation and it abated because of the start of companysolidation operations and that it companyld number be said that sirdari rights accrued in favour of the appellant.
He denied that respondents were ever in possession of the land or that they had grown any crop there.
Authorities under the Consolidation Act as well as the High Court proceeded on the footing that suit under Section 209 was maintainable.
The case of the appellant was that he had acquired rights in whole of the land as owner and in any case he became entitled to the land falling to the share of Shivrati on the basis of adverse possession and he also took up the plea that Shivrati was number the son of Baldev, his father.
Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal, filed by the respondents, also held that it was the appellant before us who was in possession of the whole land, which was proved from the records and entries.
The companyrt said it was hard to believe that when possession had number been obtained through execution of the decree Shivrati would have delivered possession of his own share to the respondents.
did number obtain possession even after the sale deed and so the sale deed never got executed.
Thereafter, numberices were issued inviting objections to the records so prepared.
P. Wadhwa, J. Appellant is aggrieved by judgment dated December 2, 1980 of the Allahabd High Court rejecting his objections filed by him under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 For short the Consolidation Act which objections had been upheld by the authorities under that Act.
