JUDGMENT RULING: Non-Compliance with Land Record Manual Mandates and Lack of Jurisdiction Vitiate Claims of Title and Possession.

The dispute concerns title over several plots (khata nos. 720/40, 722/92, 746/40, 755/24) in Village Rampur Bagha, District Deoria, recorded in the basic year of consolidation as sirdari plots in the name of the Petitioner (Laxmi) and Respondent No. 10.

Respondent No. 8 filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (U.P.C.H.) Act, 1953, seeking to add 92 decimals to his khata.

The Petitioner claimed sole title based on three grounds: (i) a decree dated 25.11.1965 in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (U.P.Z.A. & L.R.) Act; (ii) a compromise allegedly entered before the Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO) on 24.6.1975; and (iii) long-standing possession.

The lower consolidation authorities (CO, SOC, and DDC) rejected the Petitioner’s claims, prompting this writ petition.

1. Whether a decree passed by a Judicial Officer (J.O.) in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is valid for determining title in consolidation proceedings.

2. Whether the Petitioner established title through adverse possession or land record entries without complying with the Land Record Manual.

3. Whether the alleged compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer was genuine and binding.

The Court applied Section 331 and Schedule II of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, which mandates that only an Assistant Collector First Class has the original jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration of rights under Section 229-B.

It further relied on the principle established in Ambika v. Deputy Director of Consolidation [2007 (103) RD 317], which holds that compliance with Paragraphs A-80 to A-102-C of the Land Record Manual (regarding P.A. 10 notices) is mandatory for any entry of possession to have evidentiary value.

Finally, the Court observed that a party claiming benefit under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act must prove the existence and legality of any prior decree or compromise.

The Court found that the alleged decree of 1965 was a nullity because the Judicial Officer (J.O.) lacked the inherent jurisdiction to decide a Section 229-B suit, as Schedule II of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act exclusively empowered the Assistant Collector First Class for such matters.

Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to produce the actual judgment/decree before the trial (Consolidation) court, and filing it later via supplementary affidavit in the High Court was procedurally insufficient.

Regarding the claim of possession, the Court upheld the Settlement Officer's finding that the entries were not made in accordance with the Land Record Manual—specifically, there was no reference to the mandatory P.A. 10 (notice of possession) or diary entries, rendering the entries inadmissible as evidence of title.

Lastly, the Court dismissed the alleged 1975 compromise as it was found to be "non-genuine" and "forged" by the lower authorities, noting that if the 1965 decree were valid, there would have been no need for a subsequent compromise.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the orders of the consolidation authorities. All interim orders were vacated.