Holding

The Supreme Court held that the finding of adverse possession is a factual determination that cannot be interfered with, and that a compensation statement under Section 240‑J is final only between the land‑holder and the State and does not bind an Adhivasi who was not a party, leading to dismissal of the appeals.

Summary

Abdul Qadir, as successor of an evacuee property declared under the Custodian of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, claimed adverse possession over land and sought to be recorded as sirdar and bhumidar in two khatas. The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer initially upheld his claim, but the Deputy Director reversed, holding that he was not in adverse possession. The matter proceeded through writ petitions and a special appeal, where the Division Bench affirmed the Deputy Director’s finding and also held that because the respondent, Maimoona Khatoon, was not a party to the Zamindari Abolition proceedings, the settlement did not bind her and she was entitled to consolidation benefits. The appellant argued that the finding of adverse possession was a factual determination that could not be revisited and that the compensation statement under Section 240‑J of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act was final only between the land‑holder and the State. The Supreme Court agreed that the adverse‑possession finding is a factual determination not open to review, and that a compensation statement is final only between the land‑holder and the State, not binding an Adhivasi who was not a party, and therefore dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the finding of adverse possession by the Deputy Director is a factual finding that can be interfered with by a higher court.
Whether a compensation statement under Section 240-J of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is final and binding on persons who were not parties to the original proceedings, particularly an Adhivasi.
Whether the respondent, not being impleaded in the Zamindari Abolition proceedings, is bound by the settlement and entitled to benefits of consolidation.
Whether the appellant is entitled to be recorded as sirdar and bhumidar based on alleged adverse possession.

Legislation cited

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Acts. 240-J, s. 240-J(2)

Subjects

adverse possessioncompensation statementfinalityevacuee propertyconsolidation proceedingsU.P. Zamindari Abolition ActSection 240-JSection 7Adhivasi rightskhata

Judgment

A ABDUL QADIR (DEAD) BY LRS.
v.
SMT. MAIMOONA KHATOON (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 14, 1996

B [K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]

Custodian of Evacuee property Act, 1950/U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Refomis Act:

C Section 7/240-J-Property declared as evacuee property-17iereafter pur-
chased by the appellant-Consolidation proceedings-Appellant claiming to
be in adverse possession and entitled to be recorded as Sirdar in one Khata
and Bhumidar in the other khata--Consolidation Officer and Settlement
Officer upheld the claim-Deputy Director reversing the finding, holding that
the appellant was not in adverse possession-Division Bench upholding the
D view of Deputy Direct01; held that since respondent was not impleaded in the
proceedings under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, the claim settlement
did not bind her and she was entitled to the benefits of consolidation-On
appeal held, as regards adverse possession, it is a finding offact upheld by
the Division Bench and it cannot be inte1fered with-Compensation statement
E signed and sealed is final between land-holder and State alone-In the
absence of Adhivasi being a party to the proceedings, any finding recorded
would not bind the Adhivasi.

Avdhesh Singh v. Bikaram Ahir, AIR (1975) Allahabad 324, held
inapplicable to the present case.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 547-548
of 1976.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.73 of the Allahabad High
Court in S.A. Nos. 1C)38 and 1205 of 1969.
G
V.J. Franci& for the Appellants.
I . .

Ram
-
Mrs. Chhabra, ·(NP) and Ms. Rachna Gupta and· LP. Singh for
the Respondents.

H · The following Order of the Court was delivered .:
656
ABDUL QADIR v. MAIMOONAKHATOON 657

The chequered history of this case is coming to a close after three A
decades of litigation. On May 21, 1956, I/3rd share of Smt. Shahida
Khatoon was declared evacuee. In the proceedings initiated under the
custodian of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, under Section 7 declaration, it
was recorded as evacuee property and thereafter the appellant had pur-
chased the same. In the consolidation proceedings under the Consolidation B
Act the objections came to be filed by the respondent. The appellant
claimed that he was in adverse possession and that, therefore, he is entitled
to be recorded as a sirdar in one Khata and Bhumidar in other Khata.
Though the Consolidation Officer and the ·Settlement Officer on appeal
upheld the finding, but in revision the Dy. Director upset the finding and
held that the appellant was not in adverse possession. That order came to
c
be made on November 18, 1965. Calling in question that order, the appel-
lant had filed a writ petition. The respondent also filed another writ
petition against a part of the order of the Dy. Director wherein in respect
of khata No. 90 it was held that she was not entitled to the declaration that
she was the sirdar. Both the writ petitions were dismissed. When special D
appeal was filed; the Division Bench, while reversing the finding of the
single Judge that the appellant had adverse possession, concluded the
finding that he was not in adverse possession as recorded by the Dy.
Director. On the finding with regard to the title in Khata No. 90, it was
held that since the respondent was not impleaded in the proceedings of E
the U.P. Zamindari, Abolition Act the claim settlement made, did not bind
· her she being in possession as the sirdar and accordingly, she was entitled
to the benefits of consolidation. Thus this appeal by special leave against
the order of the Division Bench dated July 30, 1974 in Special Appeal No.
1038 of 1969 etc. F
-- Shri Francis, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
High Court and the Dy. Director were not right in recording the finding
that the appellant was not in adverse possession in the face of the proceed-
ings initiated by the Asstt. Director of the Custodian of Evacuee Property G
and sale thereof by them. The question whether the appellant is in adverse
possession is a finding of fact recorded by the Dy. Director as upheld by
the Division Bench. Under those circumstances, we cannot go into the
question for the first titrte in this appeal. It respect of Khata No. 218
relating to 1 bigha 9 biswas, it being a finding of fact, we. cannot interfere
with the same. H
I
~ \

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.

A It is then contended that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench
of the Allahabad High Court inAvdhesh Singh v. BikannaAhir, AIR (1975)
Allahabad 324, the appellant is entitled to the relief on second point, in
view of the finding No. 1 as recorded by the Full Bench. We find that the
contention is not wholly sound. It is to be read in conjunction with the
B finding on point No. 2 referred to be larger _Bench of 5 Judges. The Full
Bench recorded thus :

"Finality of Compensation Statement under Section 240- J, U.P.
Zamindari Abolitiommd Land ReformsAct extinguishes the rights
and title of the land-holder and the land-holder is debarred from
c showing in collateral or separate proceedings that the land is not
held by an Adhivasi, except in cases where the provisions of the
Act have not been followed or where the Compensation Statement
has been prepared in disregard of the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure (Katikara Chintamani Dora v. Guatreddi An-
D namanaidu, AIR 1974 SC 1069). If the requirements of the Act
have not been complied with or the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure have been disregarded, the Compensation
Statement signed and sealed by the Compensation Officer under
Section 240-J (2) of the Act can be assailed in collateral proceed-
E mgs.

The Compensation Statement signed and sealed under Section
240-J (2) of the Act is final between the land- hol.der and the State
alone.
F
The land-holder against whom compensation Statement has
become final and who has received compensation has no locus

G
standi to reagitate his rights in respect of the land in question."

Though on finding No. (1) it was held that finality of Compensation
State.~ent under Section 240-J of the U .P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
-
Reforms Act extinguishes the rights and title. of the land~holder and the
land-ho.Ider is debarred from showing in collateral or separate proceedings
that the land is not held by an Adhivasi, except in cases enume~ated later.
The Compensation Statement as found in point No ..2 signed and sealed
H undet Section 240-J is final between the fond-holder and the State alone .

•
ABDUL QADIR v. MAIMOONAKHATOON 659

In the absence of Adhivasi being a party to those proceedings, any finding A
recorded would not bind the Adhivasi. The High Court, therefore, has held
that the Adhivasi was entitled to be recognised under the Act. This being
the finding, though on point No. 1 the appellant may have a case,on point
No. 2, he cannot get the relief.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. B

G.N . Appeals dismissed.

..