Sikmi tenant entries denoting permissive possession cannot confer adhivasi rights or establish title through adverse possession.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the DDC was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the CO and SOC regarding the respondent's claim to adhivasi and sirdar status

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders of the DDC dated October 26, 1971, and September 17, 1982

It also directed

It held that non-genuine revenue entries and permissive sharecropping arrangements do not confer adhivasi or sirdar rights, especially when continuity of possession is not proved by subsequent records

The judgments of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation were upheld

01Facts

The case arose from objections filed under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953

¶ 1

The dispute involved plot nos. 1100, 4643, 1072, 3275, and 883 in Village Haraiya, Azamgarh, which were recorded in the basic year in the name of the petitioner’s predecessors

¶ 2

The contesting respondent (Respondent-4) claimed adhivasi and sirdar rights based on revenue entries from 1356-F and 1359-F, where he was recorded as a ‘sikmi tenant’ with a ‘Batai Nisfi’ (sharecropping) note

¶ 3

The Consolidation Officer (CO) and the Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) concurrently rejected these objections, finding the entries were either struck off, not genuine, or lacked continuity for the ten years preceding consolidation

¶ 4

However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC), in a revision under Section 48, partly allowed the claim for three plots (1072, 1100, 3275), holding that the respondent became an adhivasi and subsequently a sirdar based on the 1356-F and 1359-F entries

¶ 6-7

The petitioner challenged the DDC’s orders dated October 26, 1971, and September 17, 1982

¶ 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the DDC was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the CO and SOC regarding the respondent's claim to adhivasi and sirdar status

¶ 10, 16

ii.2. Whether permissive possession recorded as ‘sikmi tenant’ with ‘Batai Nisfi’ could ripen into adverse possession or confer adhivasi rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act

¶ 12, 20

iii.3. Whether entries in the remark column that were later discontinued or struck off constitute a valid legal basis for declaring tenure rights

¶ 17, 24

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 20 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which confers rights based on revenue records, provided the entries are genuine and made according to law

¶ 25

It relied on the classical requirements of adverse possession—nec vi, nec clam, nec precario—emphasizing that possession must be peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner

¶ 22

The court further cited Bachan v. Kankar (1972) and Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan (1976) to establish that fictitious, forged, or non-genuine entries, or those made without lawful basis (such as those in the remark column without following the Land Revenue Act), cannot confer adhivasi rights

¶ 25, 26

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arms Act, 1959 Section 29

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the DDC erred by lightly interfering with concurrent findings of fact without addressing the legal consequences of the discontinued entries

¶ 10, 17

The court noted that for adverse possession to be established, there must be continuous hostile possession for at least 12 years; however, the respondent’s name was absent from the records for over 10 years prior to the commencement of consolidation

¶ 18, 19

Furthermore, the entry of the respondent as a ‘sikmi tenant’ with a ‘Batai Nisfi’ note indicated "permissive possession" rather than "adverse possession"

¶ 20

The court observed that the DDC based its conclusion on an assumption of a 'partition' or 'contract' without any evidence on record

¶ 23

Since the entries in the remark column for 1356-F and 1359-F were either not genuine or lacked the requisite animus possidendi, they failed the tests laid down in Uttam Chand v. Nath Ram and M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das

¶ 22, 25