HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 13689 of 1982 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri I.N. Singh, Advocate for private respondent. 2. The Court finds that this writ petition though pending since 1982, i.e., for more than 43 years, however, after hearing at length it appears that instead to decide it on merit, the matter requires re-consideration by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 since it provides ample power to decide the matter on merit. 3. The reason for aforesaid observation is that claim of private respondent-Bhedi (since deceased and represented through legal hairs) that he has attained right on land in suit on basis of adverse possession, was rejected on specific grounds that P.A. 10 was not prepared and entries in columns 9 and 5 alone would not be sufficient to prove adverse possession. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Tripathi, H.N.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajay Yadav, I. N. Singh, I.N. Singh, S.C. Khacheru .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The aforesaid reasoned order was interfered by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal filed on behalf of contesting respondent on a ground that entries under columns 5 and 9 are relevant and sufficient to prove adverse possession. The Appellate Authority has not dealt with effect of non preparation of P.A. 10. 5. Revision filed by original petitioner was rejected in a very cursory manner and effect of non preparation of PA 10 was rejected. 6. The Court takes note that name of original respondent was recorded in columns 5 and 9 cannot be only ground to prove adverse possession when PA 10 was not prepared as well as basic ingredient to prove adverse possession i.e. nec vi, nec clam and nec precario were absolutely missing. Irrigation receipts are also not a sufficient proof of adverse possession (See, Jagan Nath and others vs. DDC and others, Writ-B No. 8439 of 1984, decided on 04.01.2024). 7. The Court finds that Revisional Authority has not taken note of law on adverse possession as discussed by this Court in D.B.Upadhyaya vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2026:AHC:69836. 8. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 20.10.1982 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to pass a fresh order after taking note of aforesaid observations as well as position of law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today, after hearing rival parties. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. April 20, 2026 AK WRIB No. 13689 of 1982 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad