Unique 70-Year Land Dispute Resolved by Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: A long-standing land dispute that spanned the tenures of all previous Prime Ministers has been resolved by a Supreme Court bench including Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria, neither of whom were born when the case originated from a 1957 sale deed.
This 70-year-old conflict involved a parcel of 15.5 bighas in Narsipur Kalan village, Haridwar, purchased by the ancestors of the appellant, Sarafat Ali, through a sale deed dated June 4, 1957. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of both the trial court and the High Court, affirming the validity of the sale deed.
Justice Mishra succinctly summarized the complicated history of the case, stating: “What initially commenced as proceedings for mutation gradually traversed into the realm of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the consolidation framework. However, its odyssey across multiple forums culminated in futility, with the authorities below concurrently holding that the appellants had failed to prove the execution of the said sale deed, thereby compelling them to seek refuge before this court.”
At the time the deed was executed, Sarafat Ali’s predecessors were minors, meaning the land was purchased by their father. Throughout the protracted legal journey, Sarafat Ali also passed away, and the case continued to be fought by his legal heir, resulting in four generations of the family being entangled in this legal battle.
Initially, the seller raised objections regarding the mutation of the land to the purchasers’ name but later withdrew them, enabling revenue authorities to complete the mutation process in favor of the appellants. However, when land consolidation proceedings began in the village, the appellants discovered their names missing from the records as the rightful owners, while the land was still registered in the seller’s name. The consolidation officer, referring to the mutation records, recorded the appellants’ names as the rightful owners of the land.
This determination was contested by the sellers, leading the consolidation officer to order a fresh adjudication.
