http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ABDUL QADIR (DEAD) BY LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. MAIMOONA KHATOON (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (2) 500        JT 1996 (3)    70  1996 SCALE  (2)587

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The chequered history of this case is coming to a close after three  decades of  litigation. On  May 21, 1956, 1/3rd 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 purchased  the same.  In the  consolidation  proceedings under the  Consolidation 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 to in  adverse possession.  That order  came to  be made  on November 18,  1965. Calling  in  question  that  order,  the appellant 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  appeal   was  filed,   the  Division  Bench,  while reversing the finding of the single Judge that the appellant had 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  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.      Shri  Francis,   learned  counsel   for  the  appellant contended that  the High Court and the Dy. Director were not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

right in recording the finding that the appellant was not in adverse possession  in the face of the proceedings initiated by the  Asstt. Director of the Custodian of Evacuee Property 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 time  in this  appeal.  In  respect  of  Khata  No.218 relating, to  1 bigha  9 biswas, it being a finding of fact, we cannot interfere with the same.      It is  then contended  that in  view of the judgment of the Full  Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Avdhesh Singh v. Bikarma  Ahir [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 finding  on point  No.2 referred to by the larger Bench of 5 Judges. The Full Bench recorded thus;      "Finality of Compensation Statement      under Section 240-J, U.P. Zamindari      Abolition  and   Land  Reforms  Act      extinguishes the  rights and  title      of the  land-holder  and  the  land      holder is  debarred from 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 Annamanaidu,  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 proceedings.           The   Compensation   Statement      signed  and  sealed  under  Section      240-J  (2)  of  the  Act  is  final      between the  land  holder  and  the      State alone.           The land-holder  against  whom      Compensation Statement  has  become      final   and    who   has   received      compensation has no locus standi to      reagitate his  rights in respect of      the land in question."      Though on  finding No.(1)  it was held that finality of Compensation Statement  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-holder is dabarred from  showing in collateral or separate proceedings that the  land is  not held  by an Adhivasi, except in cases enumerated later.  The Compensation  Statement as  found  in point No.2  signed and  sealed under  Section 240-J is final between the  land-holder and the State alone. In the absence of Adhivasi  being a party to those proceedings, any finding recorded would  not  bind  the  Adhivasi.  The  High  Court,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

therefore, has  held that  the Adhivasi  was entitled  to be recognized 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.