Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 1114 (ALL)

Ram Autar v. Rajvir Singh

1988-12-02

RAM LAL

body1988
JUDGMENT Ram Lal, Member. - This is a reference under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act arising out of two revisions, one filed by Ram Autar and another filed by Rajveer Singh, against the order dated 28-1-75 passed by the Tahsildar, Firozabad, district Agra, in a mutation case. Since the nature of the case and the parties are the same both the references are decided by a common judgment/order. Reference No. 201/LR shall be the leading tile. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that Rajveer Singh alias Daroga, filed a mutation report claiming succession being maternal nephew of the deceased Veera. Ram Autar tiled an objection claiming succession as an adopted son of the deceased. Later on father of Rajveer Singh by moving an application before the trial court did not press the claim of Rajveer Singh and withdrew in favour of Ram Autar. The trial court after considering the evidence held that Ram Autar was not the adopted son of the deceased and ordered expunction of the name of the deceased Veera in the disputed khata and recording the land in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Against this order dated 28-1-75 one revision preferred by Ram Autar and another revision preferred by Rajveer Singh. The learned Addl. Collector made a reference to this court recommending that the order of the trial court be set aside and Ram Autar be held as adopted son of the deceased Veera. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has supported the reference while the learned counsel for the O. P. have opposed it. According to the counsel for the O. P. the learned Addl. Collector has not given better reasons and as such the finding recorded by the trial court being well reasoned could not be upset. With regard to the theory of adoption there is major contradiction on the point of time and feast given on that occasion between the statements of witnesses produced, on behalf of Ram Autar, revisionist. Therefore, these contradictions rendered the theory of adoption as doubtful. Mere absence of an objection on behalf of Gaon Sabha will not help the case of the revisionist. The learned counsel for the revisionist urged that contradictions being of minor nature the theory of adoption should be accepted. Therefore, these contradictions rendered the theory of adoption as doubtful. Mere absence of an objection on behalf of Gaon Sabha will not help the case of the revisionist. The learned counsel for the revisionist urged that contradictions being of minor nature the theory of adoption should be accepted. He has strenuously submitted that the finding of the trial court on this point is not correct. He has further submitted that trial court had no power to vest the land in Gaon Sabha without resorting to the provisions of Section 194 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Rule 172 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by the parties. In the present case the contest remains between the revisionist and the Land Management Committee. There remains no contest between Rajveer Singh and Ram Autar as the father of Rajveer Singh by moving an application before the trial court did not press his claim. On this score the revision of Rajveer Singh is liable to be dismissed. 6. As regards the revision of Ram Autar there is material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of the revisionist on the point of time and feast given at the time of alleged oral adoption. These contradictions cannot be ignored lightly as argued out by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the trial court's order is well reasoned and cannot be upset unless whether reasons are given to upset it. The learned Addl. Collector while making recommendation has said that the Gaon Sabha has not opposed the case of Ram Autar nor had filed any objection before the trial court. I have perused the orders of the trial court which is well reasoned and well discussed and is based on the evidence on record. There is no perversity in it nor a conclusion other than what drawn by it can be taken. The theory of adoption is not believable in the above circumstances. 7. Section 194 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act provides for taking possession of the land by LMC. In the present case the LMC does not want to take possession of the land. The theory of adoption is not believable in the above circumstances. 7. Section 194 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act provides for taking possession of the land by LMC. In the present case the LMC does not want to take possession of the land. Rule 172 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R, Rules lays down the procedure for instituting a suit before the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division by the LMC when there is an extinction of tenure-holder's rights in a holding, the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division after an enquiry makes a declaration in favour of LMC in case he is satisfied on the basis of evidence on record. Thereafter the possession is delivered, to the LMC on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 154. In the case the revisionist having being failed to prove the adoption and Rajveer Singh having been withdrawn the case in favour of the revisionist, there is no other alternative excepting to vest the land in Gaon Sabha for which the trial court is fully competent to pass an order of the nature passed in this case. The mutation proceedings are of physical nature and no khata should remain in the name of the dead person or without any entry thereby adversely affecting the physical interest of the State. 8. The above view is supported by the case law laid down in 1983 A.V.N. 205 "Irshad All Khan v. Mst. Raisa Begum" where it has been held that if it is difficult to find an heir the land should vest in the Gaon Sabha and it is not necessary to follow the procedure prescribed in U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Rules to declare the land to be of the Gaon Sabha. 9 For the reasons mentioned above I am not prepared to accept the recommendation made by the learned Addl. Collector, therefore, he reference is liable to be discharged. 10. In the result the reference is discharged and both the revisions are dismissed and the order of the trial court is upheld. 11. This order will also govern Reference No. 202/L.R./1975-76/Agra.