In a significant ruling on land rights, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a consolidation order in a decades-old land dispute case. The judgment was delivered by Justice Chandra Kumar Rai on July 3, 2024, in the case of Mewa Lal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (Writ – B No. 14553 of 1981).
Background:
The case pertains to disputed agricultural land (plot numbers 376 and 377) in Village Narainpur, Manwarpara, Pargana Nagar West, Tehsil Haraya, District Basti. The petitioners claimed rights over the land as Shikami tenants (sub-tenants) of one Ram Anjor Singh, asserting they had become Adhivasis (hereditary tenants) and later Sirdars (occupancy tenants) after the abolition of the zamindari system. They challenged the ownership claims of respondents Prabhakar Singh and Sudhakar Singh, who had purchased the land through a sale deed in 1963.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether the petitioners had acquired Adhivasi and Sirdar rights over the disputed land after the vesting date (abolition of zamindari).
2. Validity of the 1963 sale deed executed by Ram Anjor Singh in favour of respondents.
3. Interpretation of revenue records and their evidentiary value in determining land rights.
4. Scope of revisional powers under Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Court’s Decision:
Justice Rai upheld the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) dated November 2, 1981, which had declared the respondents as Bhumidhars (landowners) of the disputed plots. The court found that:
1. The petitioners failed to prove their claim of being Shikami tenants and subsequently acquiring Adhivasi/Sirdar rights. The revenue entries relied upon by them were found to be inconsistent and unreliable.
2. The sale deed executed by Ram Anjor Singh in 1963 was valid, as his rights had not extinguished before the sale.
3. The court emphasized that entries in revenue records must be made in accordance with Paragraph 87 of the UP Land Records Manual. Entries not conforming to these rules cannot be relied upon to claim land rights.
4. The court upheld the DDC’s exercise of revisional powers, noting that the 2002 amendment to Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act allows the revisional authority to examine both factual and legal aspects of lower orders.
The court also directed that the amount deposited by the petitioners since 1983 under an interim order be released to the respondents within six weeks.
Also Read
Legal Representation:
– For the Petitioners: Mr. S.L. Yadav, Advocate
– For the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Chaudhary, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Tripathi, and others
– For the State: Mr. Tarun Gaur, Standing Counsel
