Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 1272 (ALL)

Shibban v. Mangi

1992-09-18

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide his order dated 6.4.1987 under SEction 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of Additional Collector, Mathura dated 24.4.1986 passed in a proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The allotment of Mangi was challenged by the revisionist under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The proceeding was contested by the allottee. The trial court dismissed the proceeding vide it order dated 24.4.1986. Against that order of the Additional Commissioner revision was filed which has been recommended by the learned Additional Commissioner that the revision should be allowed, on the ground that the trial court has dismissed the proceeding that it is time-barred whereas the proceeding is not time-barred in view of the amendment of Section 198 by Act No. XX of 1982. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned D.G.C.(R). The objection is filed on behalf of the opposite party but nobody has appeared. Perused the record. 4. The trial court has dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it was time-barred. The Additional Commissioner has made the recommendation that in view of the amendment of Section 198 limitation provided has been extended from time to time. The trial court originally decided the proceeding on 24.4.1986 when the proceeding was decided there was limitation, hence the order of the trial court is against law, therefore, it would be set aside and the case should be remanded to the trial court. There is no dispute about this legal position. 5. The plot no. 1002 was allotted to the allottees. The main grievance of the revisionist was that it is a Rasta, hence the allotment should be cancelled. No finding has been recorded by the trial court although it has discussed all the evidence led by the parties on this point. In Khatauni and C.H. forms 45 and 41 the disputed plots are recorded as Banjar. The contention of the revisionist was that the plot no. 1002 is indicated in the map with the symbol of Rasta, therefore, this should be treated as a Rasta. Thus there is no Khasra and Khatauni to show that the dispute plot was a Rasta but it was recorded as Banajar. The contention of the revisionist was that the plot no. 1002 is indicated in the map with the symbol of Rasta, therefore, this should be treated as a Rasta. Thus there is no Khasra and Khatauni to show that the dispute plot was a Rasta but it was recorded as Banajar. In these circumstances of the fact it is evidently clear and proved that the disputed plot is recorded as Banjer. It is a Rasta. It can be so recorded and held if any competent court decide it that it is a Rasta. Suppose if any court decide that it is a Rasta even then the allotment will be under Section 197 of the Act and in view of Section 9 of the Act the proceeding ought to have been abated but in the present case the evidence of the opposite parties prove that the disputed land is not a Rasta on the spot. Mere indication of Rasta in the map will not make it Rasta. The map is prepared on the basis of the Khasra and Khatauni, therefore, the entry of the map will not supersede the entry of Khasra and Khatauni but the entry of Khasra and Khatauni will supersede the entry of map. In these circumstances of the case though the proceeding was not time-barred but in view of the hardship the allottee will have, it is not legally justified to remand the proceeding for fresh trial. The nature of the land cannot be decided in the proceeding under Section 198(4) of the Act. This can be decided by any competent court of jurisdiction and if there is this decision even then the allotment will be valid subject to the provisions of Sub-Section 9 of Section 198 of the Act. Meaning thereby that the allottee will be Asami and they will be liable to ejectment on the initiation of proceeding by the Land Management committee for which there is no need to cancel the allotment. As regards the validity of the proceeding for the allotment as many a 22 persons were allotted land in the resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 23.1.1976. The allotment of the other allottees has not been Challenged except the allottee Mangi, therefore, it will be presumed that the allotment proceeding was valid and legal. Both the Pradhan had supported the allotment. The allotment of the other allottees has not been Challenged except the allottee Mangi, therefore, it will be presumed that the allotment proceeding was valid and legal. Both the Pradhan had supported the allotment. In these circumstances of the case there appears no justification for setting aside the order of the trial court. 6. In these circumstances of the case the references is rejected.