Second Appellate Court Cannot Set Aside Findings of Fact to Decree Bhumidhari Rights Based on Adverse Possession.

The dispute concerns Plot No. 223 (area 2.42 decimal) in District Ballia. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (U.P.Z.A. & L.R.) Act, claiming bhumidhari rights on the grounds that they had been in continuous possession of the plot since 1970 with the permission of the petitioner’s father.

The petitioner (defendant below) contended he was the recorded bhumidhar and that the plot was allotted to him during consolidation operations without any objection from the respondents.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 26.07.1999, finding the respondents were merely bataidars (sharecroppers) and had raised no claim during consolidation.

The first appellate court (Commissioner) affirmed this dismissal on 01.09.2000.

However, the Board of Revenue allowed the second appeal on 13.02.2001, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondents based on oral evidence and the plea of adverse possession for a statutory period.

1. Whether the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing concurrent findings of fact while exercising second appellate powers.

2. Whether a suit for declaration under Section 229-B can be maintained after the conclusion of consolidation operations where no objection was raised under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

3. Whether rights can be claimed via adverse possession or Class IX entries without specialized compliance with the Land Record Manual.

The court applied the jurisdictional limits of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC read with Section 331(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, referencing Sharda Devi v. Board of Revenue U.P. [1985 RD 93], which prohibits setting aside findings of fact recorded by trial/first appellate courts unless grossly erroneous.

Regarding adverse possession and Class IX entries (possession without title), the court relied on Mangu v. Deputy Director of Consolidation [2010 (111) RD 379], which mandates strict compliance with Paragraphs A-80, A-81, A-82, and 102-A of the Land Record Manual, including notice to the recorded tenure holder (Form P.A. 10), failing which no title is conferred.

Consideration of the bar under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act regarding disputes not raised during consolidation.

The High Court found that the Trial Court and the Commissioner had recorded categorical findings of fact that the respondents were mere bataidars and that no dispute was raised during consolidation proceedings.

The Board of Revenue erroneously reversed these findings through a "cryptic judgment" without properly addressing the lack of procedural compliance required for adverse possession claims.

The court noted that the respondents failed to prove title via the Land Record Manual's mandatory provisions, as established in Mangu (Supra).

The court held that the Board of Revenue exceeded its second appellate jurisdiction by interfering with evidence-based findings of fact without establishing a substantial error of law, thereby violating the principles set in Sharda Devi (Supra).

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Board of Revenue’s orders dated 13.02.2001 and 18.06.2001. The judgments of the Trial Court (26.07.1999) and the first appellate court (01.09.2000), which dismissed the respondents' suit, were affirmed.