U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act – After Teja Singh died, his name was substituted by Appellant Harbhajan Kaur (since deceased) by the Supervisor Qanoongo since he found her to be in possession of the land – with out publicity – challenged – The High Court held that though Para 423 of the Land Records Manual authorizes the Supervisor Qanoongo to make entry of possession in remarks column but it shall be done after full publicity about his visit. In this case, neither publicity was done nor notice was given to the legal heirs of Teja Singh and, therefore, both the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director, Consolidation were justified in quashing the entries made in favour of the present appellants – We are in agreement with the aforesaid findings to the extent that Supervisor Qanoongo could not have made entries in favour of the appellants without giving public notice and without giving notice to the legal heirs of Teja Singh. The dispute is as to which of the parties is in possession of the land. The High Court erred in directing that the names of both the parties should be removed. This could not have been done. Therefore, the direction of the High Court that the entry of possession cannot continue in favour of either of the parties is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Supervisor Qanoongo, who after hearing both the sides, shall decide as to who is in legal possession of the land in dispute and thereafter make relevant entry in the revenue records.

1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1497 OF 2018
(@SLP (C) NO(S).5278 OF 2014)
Jagtar Singh & Ors. …. Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 29.07.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 3791 of 2001
whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was
dismissed.
2
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the land,
which is the subject matter of dispute, was earlier shown in
possession of one Teja Singh and entry in this behalf was
reflected in Varg-4 of the revenue record. After Teja Singh
died, his name was substituted by Appellant Harbhajan Kaur
(since deceased) by the Supervisor Qanoongo since he found
her to be in possession of the land. Jagir Singh and Karnail
Singh, sons of Teja Singh, filed objections under the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that after the death of
their father, they being the sons continued to be in possession
of the land and their name should have been recorded in the
revenue record. These objections were dismissed. However,
on appeal being filed by the sons, the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation set aside the order passed by the Consolidation
Officer and directed that the names of Jagir Singh and
Karnail Singh be recorded in the revenue records. Revision
filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was
dismissed and thereafter, the writ petition was filed.
3
4. The High Court held that though Para 423 of the Land
Records Manual authorizes the Supervisor Qanoongo to make
entry of possession in remarks column but it shall be done
after full publicity about his visit. In this case, neither
publicity was done nor notice was given to the legal heirs of
Teja Singh and, therefore, both the Settlement Officer and the
Deputy Director, Consolidation were justified in quashing the
entries made in favour of the present appellants. The High
Court went on to hold as follows:
“In the impugned orders passed by the S.O.C.
and D.D.C., so far as the finding that the
Supervisor Qanoongo has no right to correct the
entry in revenue record, which is already in
existence, is concerned, this finding is affirmed,
but so far as the direction given to enter the
names of Karnail Singh and Jagir Singh on the
land in dispute is concerned, the same is
quashed and it is held that the entry of
petitioners and the respondents cannot
continue in revenue record after consolidation
and it is directed that entry of Varg-4 be deleted
from the land in question of both the parties,
petitioners as well as the respondents.”
5. We are in agreement with the aforesaid findings to the
extent that Supervisor Qanoongo could not have made entries
in favour of the appellants without giving public notice and
4
without giving notice to the legal heirs of Teja Singh. The
dispute is as to which of the parties is in possession of the
land. The High Court erred in directing that the names of
both the parties should be removed. This could not have
been done. Therefore, the direction of the High Court that the
entry of possession cannot continue in favour of either of the
parties is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Supervisor
Qanoongo, who after hearing both the sides, shall decide as to
who is in legal possession of the land in dispute and
thereafter make relevant entry in the revenue records.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
………………………..J.
(Madan B. Lokur)
…………………………J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
February 02, 2018