LexMAZHAR HASSAN versus GANGU SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 404 A MAZHAR HASSAN ?..... v. GANGU SINGH AND ORS. (C.A. No. 186 of 2008) B JANUARY 9, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] )' Land Reforms: Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms c Act- ss.209 & 210- Decree of eviction against respondent in suit under s.209 of the U.PZ.A & L.R. Act - Execution application rejected as time barred - Decree holders sold disputed land to appellant who got land mutated in his name - Objection by respondents u/s. 9A(2) of the UP Consolidation D of Holdings Act to mutation and claim for ownership by virtue of adverse possession - Objection rejected by Consolidation Officer - But upheld in appeal by Settlement Officer - Dy ,. Director set aside order of Settlement Officer - Respondents filed writ petition before High Court which restored order of E Settlement Officer- On appeal, Held: Finding of Consolidation Officer that respondents were unable to prove their continuous possession for 12 years and on the contrary appellant was in possession, was conclusive - High Court erred in overlooking this finding and in holding that respondents would be deemed F to be in possession simply because execution application was " rejected as time barred - High Court erred in not giving proper ~ consideration to plea of appellants that respondents had voluntarily handed over possession to decree holders and for that reason the decree was not put in execution in time - UP G Consolidation of Holdings Act- s. 9A(2) - Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 226 -Adverse possession. The land in dispute was situated in a village in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In respect of the said land, 'R'and her sisters, heirs of the original tenure holder, obtained a H 404 . ' MAZHAR HASSAN v. GANGU SINGH AND ORS. 405 decree of eviction against the Respondents in a suit filed A under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The decree was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. The decree holders 'R' and her sisters filed an execution application which was, however, dismissed as time barred. Thereafter, 'R' and her sisters sold the disputed s land to the appellant, who, on the basis of the sale deed, got his name mutated in the revenue records. Meanwhile, consolidation operations commenced in the village and the Respondents made an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act to C expunge the name of appellant and to enter their names in his place, claiming ownership of the disputed land by virtue of adverse possession. The objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer, but upheld in appeal by the Settlement Officer who held that the Respondents had o perfected Sirdari rights over the land in dispute by adverse possession. Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside ~ the order of Settlement Officer. Respondents filed writ petition before the High Court which restored the order of Settlement Officer. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD:1.1. In terms of Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, two conditions are required to be fulfilled if the decree holder of a decree obtained in a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has to lose his rights; first, F I.- he should fail to execute the decree within the prescribed period of limitation and secondly, the person (claiming adverse rights) should take or retain possession of the disputed land. Having noticed the requirement of law, the High Court held in favour of the Respondents primarily G relying upon the fact that the execution application filed ~ by the decree holders 'R' and her sisters was dismissed as being barred by limitation. Though, it was contended before the High Court that after the decree was affirmed by the High Court, the judgment-debtors (Respondents) H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R A had voluntarily handed over possession of the disputed ,.,. • plots to the decree holders and the object of execution stood fulfilled and it was for that reason that the decree was not put in execution in time and was allowed to become time barred, the High Court brushed aside the B contention without any proper consideration. The High Court was in serious error in not giving a proper consideration to the plea raised by the appellant. [Paras , 5, 6] [409-E, F; 410-A, B, C; 411-A, B] 1.2. The order of the Consolidation Officer is totally c based on the issue of possession
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.