Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 504 (UTT)

RAJEEV NAYAN SAKLANI v. U. P. STATE

2005-11-28

C.S.RAWAT, P.C.VERMA

body2005
J. C. S. RAWAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15-6-1991 passed by the learned District Judge, tehri Garhwal wherein he dismissed the Civil Suit No. 19 of 1985. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that Rajiv Nain Saklani is the owner and in possession of land situated in Kirdo Tok, kalwan Tok and Batwaldhar Tok of village kalwan Tekhna, Patti Saklana, District Tehri garhwal. Earlier this village was a part of village Majhgaon, Patti Saklana but now it is a separate revenue village. 4. 5 hectares of land is situated in Kalwan and Kundo Tok whereas 3. 50 hectares of land lies in batwaldhar name Tok. Late Sridatt Saklani, grandfather of the plaintiff/appellant was the Muafidar of this land during the British government. Late Sridatt Saklani was in possession of this land since 1903. This land was entered in Plot Nos. 66 to 76, 136 to 170 in khata No. 1 and plot Nos. 1 to 16, 25 to 27 and 36 to 58 in khate No. 2. ( 3 ) AFTER the death of Sri Sridatt Saklani, rajiv Nain Saklani became Muafidar of the said Muafi land. In the erstwhile Tehri garhwal State in the year 1910, no khata of this land could be prepared for want of its measurements. This land was used for agriculture since the times of plaintiff/appellant's grandfather. The plaintiff/appellant asked the defendant/respondent and its officers to prepare revenue record of the land in question but they avoided and asserted their title over the disputed land. In the year 1984, the defendant/respondent arrived at the disputed land and asked the plaintiff/appellant to leave the possession. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff/appellant refuted to deliver the possession of the defendant/respondent over the property in question. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the disputed land. ( 5 ) THE defendant/respondent denied the allegations made in the plaint and contested the suit. The defendant/respondent claimed that he is the owner of the land in suit. ( 6 ) LEARNED District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 15/6/1991 dismissed the suit. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been preferred. ( 8 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The defendant/respondent claimed that he is the owner of the land in suit. ( 6 ) LEARNED District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 15/6/1991 dismissed the suit. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been preferred. ( 8 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 9 ) THE plaintiff/appellant contended that the plaintiff/appellant's grandfather late sridatt Saklani was the Muafidar of the land in dispute and the name of the plaintiff/appellant's father and grandfather could not be recorded in the year 1918 in the disputed land. It was further pointed out that in the year 1944 again a revision of settlement was conducted by the erstwhile Tehri Garhwal state and in that settlement the name of the plaintiff/appellant's grandfather or the plaintiff/appellant could not be recorded. It was further pointed out that the plaintiff/appellant was the Muafidar of the land in dispute. The plaintiff/appellant has further alleged that he is the owner in possession of the land in dispute. The learned Standing counsel refuted the contention and contended that the disputed land belongs to the forest Department and is in control and management of the said Department. The learned Standing Counsel further denied that the plaintiff/appellant was the owner and in possession of the disputed land. The learned Standing Counsel further pointed out that the disputed land is recorded as a forest land in the survey sheet as well as in the Government Orders. It was further pointed out that according to the forest records, the disputed land lies in compartment No. 2 of the reserve forest and the said disputed land is enclosed with the pillars at the spot. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that there are trees standing on the disputed land and the said land is managed and controlled by the Forest deptt. ( 10 ) THE learned trial Court after perusal of the documentary evidence as well as of the oral evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant is neither the owner nor in possession of the land in suit and the said land is forest land owned by the State govt. ( 10 ) THE learned trial Court after perusal of the documentary evidence as well as of the oral evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant is neither the owner nor in possession of the land in suit and the said land is forest land owned by the State govt. He had further held that after the merger of the Tehri State with the State of u. P. , the land in dispute become the property of the State of U. P. The learned District judge further held that there was an agreement in march, 1948 under which the disputed land was vested in Tehri Garhwal state and the Muafidar was paid compensation as alleged in his statement. The learned District Judge further held that the plaintiff/appellant's rights, if any, over the disputed land has been extinguished on the enforcement of the Kumaon Zamindari Abolition act. The learned District Judge further held that the suit is time barred and he accordingly dismissed the suit. ( 11 ) WE have gone through the entire evidence on record. The plaintiff/appellant has filed a statement khasra of Samvad 1903, i. e. year 1960 Ex. 14. According to the plaintiff/appellant, the disputed land has been recorded in his name in the year 1960. The learned Standing Counsel disputed the fact and contended that the land mentioned in ex. K-14 does not establish on record that this document pertains to the disputed land. PW-1 Rajeev Nayan has stated in his evidence that he had other land besides the disputed land and he was bhumidar and khudkast of that land. The plot Numbers in this document and name of the plaintiff/appellant has been shown as Muafidari in the year 1903 vide Ex. K-14 on record. The plaintiff/appellant has not given any plot number of the disputed land. He had only filed Commissioner's report dated 24-4-1986, paper No. 44-C in which the plot number had not been given. The identity of the disputed plot is not established which was given in the forest settlement of 1903. The document filed by the plaintiff/appellant, i. e. Ex. K-14 does not help to the plaintiff/appellant and also does not establish by any cogent evidence that it relates to the disputed land, as such, the identity of the disputed land is not established with this document. The document filed by the plaintiff/appellant, i. e. Ex. K-14 does not help to the plaintiff/appellant and also does not establish by any cogent evidence that it relates to the disputed land, as such, the identity of the disputed land is not established with this document. ( 12 ) PERUSAL of the record further reveals that the plaintiff/appellant has taken a specific case that the disputed land has not been recorded in the name of the plaintiff/appellant's grandfather in the settlement of the year 1918 and 1944 which was conducted by the erstwhile regime of the State of Tehri. PW-1 admitted this fact during his evidence. The plaintiff/appellant and his grandfather had not taken any step to get his name entered in the revenue record prepared in the settlement of 1918 and revision settlement of 1944. The plaintiff/appellant had filed a report of Supervisor, kanoongo dated 10-7-1968, Ex. 11 showing the objection of the plaintiff/appellant regarding entry in his name shall be considered later on. The Assistant Collector, Tehri had passed the following order : (Vernacular matter omitted. . . Ed.) ( 13 ) THIS order was passed in the year 1968. The plaintiff/appellant had not taken any step prior to the said application. Thus the name of the plaintiff/appellant was not on record at the time of the settlement and immediately after the settlement, the plaintiff/appellant had not taken any step for the correction of the entry, as such, the long standing entries against the plaintiff/appellant definitely debars his claim for being placed for the ownership of the disputed land. Apart this, it is admitted by PW-1 in his cross-examination that his Muafidari continued upto 1948 and thereafter his rights were taken by the Government and he got the compensation of Rs. 96,000/- of his land and muafidari rights. These muafidari included forest land etc. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the entire property of his muafidari merged in the Tehri State. Thus, the muafidari rights were taken away from the plaintiff/appellant on the payment of compensation in the year 1948 after the merger of Tehri Garhwal state in the U. P. After the agreement in the year 1948 under which the disputed land merged in the State and the plaintiff/appellant was paid compensation. The plaintiff/ appellant cannot say that he is the owner of the said disputed land. The plaintiff/ appellant cannot say that he is the owner of the said disputed land. ( 14 ) IT was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the settlement has not been made in the Saklana Patti of Tehri Garhwal and it was contended that the name of the plaintiff/appellant could not be entered in the revenue record in view of the said fact. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant relied upon Ex. 10 in which the Forest Minister of U. P. sometime ago made a statement before the Assembly that the said settlement has not been made. This fact does not help to the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff/appellant has himself admitted in his evidence that the land of the tenure holders of Saklana is entered into settlement with the erstwhile Tehri Garhwal State. It is also admitted that the forests of Saklana were in the management of Tehri Garhwal State. It is also in the cross-examination of PW-1 that there are jungles in Patwaldhar tok and some jungles in Tekhno and Kalwan toks. This fact shows that the settlement of saklana tok took place. Thus, the entire perusal of the record reveals that the disputed land is the forest land and it belongs to the State Govt. The State land is enclosed by the pillars. Thus, the statement given by the Minister is of no help to the plaintiff/appellant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant further pointed out that the document filed by the defendant/respondent, i. e. , ex. A-1 area of the forest land, Ex. A-2 survey sheet and Ex. A-3 Government orders cannot be read in evidence. The perusal of the evidence reveals that the Range Officer brought the original before the Court and the copies thereafter were filed before the court and the extract as proved by the Court below has been marked exhibits by the learned District Judge. These documents had been duly verified by witness as well as the Officers of the Department. It was pointed out by witness that the original of these documents remained in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer. The perusal of the statement reveals that the witness has stated as follows : (Vernacular matter omitted. . . Ed.) ( 15 ) THIS statement shows that original documents which is brought by him are similar to the documents available in the office. The perusal of the statement reveals that the witness has stated as follows : (Vernacular matter omitted. . . Ed.) ( 15 ) THIS statement shows that original documents which is brought by him are similar to the documents available in the office. The witness has further stated that the originals are cyclostyled paper on which there is a seal of the Government. According to these documents, the disputed land lies in compartment number 2, village majhgaon. Thus, this document are admissible. ( 16 ) THE plaintiff/appellant has adduced the evidence of PW-2 who has stated in his evidence that the plaintiff/appellant was in possession of the disputed land and he had constructed 7 or 8 shops and a house in the disputed land. PW-2 had also stated in his cross-examination that he resides where the house of the plaintiff/appellant and he had good terms with the plaintiff/appellant. During cross-examination, he has clearly stated that he could not identify the land regarding which the suit has been filed. The witness is not aware about the land for which he is giving evidence before this Court. There is no case of the plaintiff/appellant that the plaintiff/appellant had constructed the shops and a house over the land in dispute. The evidence of PW-2 with regard to ownership and possession of the disputed land cannot be relied upon. ( 17 ) THE defendant/respondent had adduced the evidence of DW-1 Daulat Singh, dw-2 Veer Singh and DW-3 Kam Singh mehra. All the witnesses has stated that the disputed land belongs to the Forest, Department and is managed and controlled by the said Department. The disputed land lies in the compartment number 2 of the reserve forest and the same is enclosed with the pillars and the said disputed land is within the said pillars. All the witnesses stated that the trees of Oak, Mauru, Devdar and Kail exist in the disputed land for more than 100 years and the Forest Department look after them. The evidence of plaintiff/appellant has also supported this fact that the said land had the trees over it. The evidence of the defendant/respondent is supported with the Ex. Ka-1, Ex. Ka-2 and Ex. Ka-3. Thus the evidence of defendant/respondent that the land belongs to the Forest Department is credible and cogent. The evidence of plaintiff/appellant has also supported this fact that the said land had the trees over it. The evidence of the defendant/respondent is supported with the Ex. Ka-1, Ex. Ka-2 and Ex. Ka-3. Thus the evidence of defendant/respondent that the land belongs to the Forest Department is credible and cogent. ( 18 ) FOR the sake of argument even if the case of the plaintiff/appellant is taken into consideration that the plaintiff/appellant was the muafidar of the said land and the said land belongs to plaintiff/appellant even then the plaintiff/appellant would not acquire any rights after the enforcement of the jamindari Abolition Act. It is admitted case of the plaintiff/appellant that the muafidari continued up to 1948 and the said rights came to an end on receipt of compensation of Rs, 96,000/ -. The revenue report Ex. 14 shows that there is an entry of Manglu as tenure holder on the plots of Sridutt muafidar. The plaintiff/appellant had relinquished his rights to favour of the Tehri State and it is not disputed that the Tehri Garhwal state merged with the U. P. State and after the enforcement of the KUZA, the rights of the plaintiff/appellant and his predecessors, if any, came to an end. The learned District judge had elaborately discussed this aspect in his judgment. We are completely in agreement with the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge was absolutely justified in holding that the plaintiff/appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the land in suit shown in commissioner's map dated 24-4-1986 and the said land is a forest land owned by the State of U. P. and after merger of Tehri State with the ,u. P. State, the land in dispute became the property of U. P. State. The District Judge had further held that there was an agreement in march, 1948 under which the disputed land vested in Tehri State and the muafidars were paid compensation. The learned District judge, further held that the plaintiff/appellant's right, if any, in the disputed land has been extinguished on the enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. ( 19 ) IT was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the learned District Judge has erred in holding that the suit is time barred. ( 19 ) IT was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the learned District Judge has erred in holding that the suit is time barred. It is revealed from the record that the compromise in between the ancestors of the plaintiff/appellant and the State of Tehri took place in the year 1948. The officers of the forest department started harassing in the year 1950 and thus brought this suit in the year 1985. Apparently, the learned District Judge was justified in holding that the suit is time barred. ( 20 ) IN view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .