Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to an evacuee property in Uttar Pradesh, where the appellant claimed adverse possession and sought to be recorded as sirdar and bhumidar in consolidation proceedings, while the respondent objected and claimed rights as Adhivasi. On May 21, 1956, one-third share of Smt. Shahida Khatoon was declared evacuee under the Custodian of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the appellant subsequently purchased the property. In consolidation proceedings under the Consolidation Act, the respondent filed objections, and the appellant claimed adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer initially upheld the appellant's claim, but the Deputy Director, in revision, reversed the finding on November 18, 1965, holding that the appellant was not in adverse possession. Both parties filed writ petitions, which were dismissed. On special appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated July 30, 1974, reversed the single Judge's finding on adverse possession, thereby upholding the Deputy Director's conclusion that the appellant had no adverse possession. However, regarding Khata No. 90, the Division Bench held that since the respondent was not impleaded in the proceedings under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the compensation statement did not bind her, and she was entitled to be recognized as sirdar. The appellant then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The appellant's counsel contended that the High Court and Deputy Director erred in recording no adverse possession in light of proceedings by the Assistant Director of the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the subsequent sale. The Supreme Court held that the question of adverse possession was a finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Director and upheld by the Division Bench, and it could not be re-examined in appeal. Regarding the second contention based on the Full Bench decision in Avdhesh Singh v. Bikarma Ahir, the Court observed that the Full Bench had recorded two findings: the first that finality of the compensation statement under Section 240-J extinguishes the rights of the land-holder, and the second that the compensation statement is final only between the land-holder and the State. Since the Adhivasi was not a party to those proceedings, the finding did not bind her. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Findings of Fact - Not open to re-appreciation in Supreme Court - Custodian of Evacuee Property Act, 1950; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - The appellant contended that the High Court and Dy. Director erred in holding no adverse possession in light of proceedings by the Asst. Director of Custodian of Evacuee Property and sale thereof. The Court held that whether the appellant was in adverse possession was a finding of fact recorded by the Dy. Director as upheld by the Division Bench, and the Supreme Court cannot go into that question for the first time. Held that the finding of fact is not to be interfered with. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Property Law - Compensation Statement Finality - Effect on Non-Party Adhivasi - Section 240-J, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Finality of Compensation Statement under Section 240-J extinguishes rights of land-holder and is final between land-holder and State alone; it does not bind an Adhivasi who was not a party to the proceedings. The appellant relied on the Full Bench decision in Avdhesh Singh v. Bikarma Ahir to argue that the compensation statement finality precluded the respondent's claim. The Court found that while the first point supported the appellant, the second point clarified that the statement is not binding on an Adhivasi not made a party. Held that the respondent as Adhivasi was entitled to be recognized under the Act. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was in adverse possession and entitled to be recorded as sirdar/bhumidar; whether the compensation statement finality under Section 240-J of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act precluded the respondent's claim as Adhivasi.
Final Decision
The appeals were dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession is a finding of fact not open to re-appreciation in appeal
- Finality of compensation statement under Section 240-J binds only landholder and State not non-party Adhivasi
- Rights of Adhivasi cannot be extinguished by collateral proceedings
- Findings of fact by lower authorities upheld unless perverse
