Allahabad High Court
KHACHERUversusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The order of the Deputy Director is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration, as entries in columns 5 and 9 alone cannot establish adverse possession without the required PA 10.
Summary
The petition, filed in 1982, sought relief against the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerning a claim of adverse possession over land. The private respondent, represented by legal heirs, alleged title based on adverse possession, but the claim was rejected because the required possession affidavit (PA 10) was not prepared and entries in columns 5 and 9 of the settlement records were deemed insufficient. The Revisional Authority upheld the rejection without addressing the missing PA 10, and the petitioner’s revision was dismissed summarily. The Court held that entries in columns 5 and 9 alone cannot establish adverse possession without the essential elements of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario and the missing PA 10, and that irrigation receipts are not adequate proof. Consequently, the order dated 20‑10‑1982 of the Deputy Director was set aside and the matter remitted to the Deputy Director under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 to pass a fresh order within six months, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether entries in columns 5 and 9 of the settlement records are sufficient to prove adverse possession in the absence of a prepared PA 10.
- Whether the non‑preparation of PA 10 defeats the claim of adverse possession.
- Whether Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 empowers the Deputy Director to reconsider the matter on merit.
- Whether irrigation receipts can be relied upon as proof of adverse possession.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- adverse possession
- consolidation of holdings
- section 48
- PA 10
- irrigation receipts
- revision
- writ petition
- land title
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 13689 of 1982
Khacheru
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Tripathi, H.N.Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajay Yadav, I. N. Singh, I.N. Singh,
S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri I.N.
Singh, Advocate for private respondent.
2. The Court finds that this writ petition though pending since 1982, i.e.,
for more than 43 years, however, after hearing at length it appears that
instead to decide it on merit, the matter requires re-consideration by
Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 since it provides ample power to decide the matter
on merit.
3. The reason for aforesaid observation is that claim of private
respondent-Bhedi (since deceased and represented through legal hairs)
that he has attained right on land in suit on basis of adverse possession,
was rejected on specific grounds that P.A. 10 was not prepared and entries
in columns 9 and 5 alone would not be sufficient to prove adverse
possession.
WRIB No. 13689 of 1982
2
4. The aforesaid reasoned order was interfered by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation in appeal filed on behalf of contesting respondent on a
ground that entries under columns 5 and 9 are relevant and sufficient to
prove adverse possession. The Appellate Authority has not dealt with
effect of non preparation of P.A. 10.
5. Revision filed by original petitioner was rejected in a very cursory
manner and effect of non preparation of PA 10 was rejected.
6. The Court takes note that name of original respondent was recorded in
columns 5 and 9 cannot be only ground to prove adverse possession when
PA 10 was not prepared as well as basic ingredient to prove adverse
possession i.e. nec vi, nec clam and nec precario were absolutely missing.
Irrigation receipts are also not a sufficient proof of adverse possession
(See, Jagan Nath and others vs. DDC and others, Writ-B No. 8439 of
1984, decided on 04.01.2024).
7. The Court finds that Revisional Authority has not taken note of law on
adverse possession as discussed by this Court in D.B.Upadhyaya vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2026:AHC:69836.
8. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 20.10.1982 passed
by Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby set aside and matter is
remitted back to pass a fresh order after taking note of aforesaid
observations as well as position of law, expeditiously, preferably within a
period of six months from today, after hearing rival parties.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
April 20, 2026
AK
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…