Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 288 (ALL)

RAM NARAIN v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD

2006-01-31

KRISHNA MURARI

body2006
( 1 ) THESE are three connected writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raising common question of facts and law and are being decided together by a common judgment. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri P. R. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the three writ petitions and Sri N. N. Verma holding brief of Sri V. K. Singh appearing for the Gaon Sabha. Challenge in these petitions has been made to the order dated 24. 4. 2004 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sahasaon district Allahabad rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under Rule 109a of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (for short the Rule) for mutation of his name. ( 3 ) IT has been contended that the impugned orders have been passed behind the back without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE facts are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 52 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 109a of the Rules framed thereunder in the year 2003 for mutation of his name on the basis of an order dated 20. 6. 1970 said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer in three cases. Vide order dated 20. 6. 1970 the Consolidation Officer had directed that the name of Gaon Sabha recorded over the plots in dispute be expunged and instead the name of the petitioner be recorded as sirdar. The certified copy of the judgment dated 6. 3. 1970 was not available as the original record is stated to have been destroyed in fire which broke out in the Collectorate of Allahabad. The petitioner relied upon the amaldaramad of the orders dated 6. 3. 1970 in CH Form-23. ( 5 ) THE Consolidation Officer after making enquiries rejected the same vide order dated 20. 2. 2004. The Consolidation Officer has recorded a number of reasons for holding the entries in CH Form 23 as forged and fabricated such as 6. 3. 1970 on which date the Consolidation Officer is said to have passed the order under Section 9a (2) of the Act was a holiday on account of Maha Shiv Ratri, the entry of the said orders in CH Form 23 was made on 10. 10. 1970 which was again a public holiday on account of Dashehra. 3. 1970 on which date the Consolidation Officer is said to have passed the order under Section 9a (2) of the Act was a holiday on account of Maha Shiv Ratri, the entry of the said orders in CH Form 23 was made on 10. 10. 1970 which was again a public holiday on account of Dashehra. He also found that application for certified copy of CH Form 23 was made on 11. 6. 1972 which was Sunday. ( 6 ) IT is no doubt correct that from the record it does not appear that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. However, the findings on which the applications of the petitioner were rejected are based on such facts which do not require any detailed investigation. In the interest of justice, the counsel for the petitioner was asked to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer that 6. 3. 1970 was a holiday on account of Shiv Ratri and 10. 10. 1970 on account of Dashehra and 11. 6. 1972 was Sunday are wrong. This could easily have been done by producing the calendar of the relevant year but the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to do so. Thus in effect a post decisional hearing has been afforded to the petitioner but he has failed to demonstrate that the reasons recorded by the Consolidation Officer in holding the entries in CH Form 23, which were the only basis of claim made by him, are in any way wrong or incorrect. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, in order to satisfy my own conscience the calendar of the relevant year was summoned by me. There is no doubt about the fact that Maha Shiv Ratri was on 6. 3. 1970 and Dashehra was on 10. 10. 1970 and both were public holiday. The finding of the Consolidation Officer that 11. 6. 1972 was Sunday is also correct. Thus all the three dates i. e. 6. 3. 1970 when the Consolidation Officer is said to have passed the order, 10. 10. 1970 when amaldaramad of the said order is alleged to have been made in CH form 23 and 11. 6. 1972 on which the date the certified copy of the CH Form 23 was applied were public holidays. 3. 1970 when the Consolidation Officer is said to have passed the order, 10. 10. 1970 when amaldaramad of the said order is alleged to have been made in CH form 23 and 11. 6. 1972 on which the date the certified copy of the CH Form 23 was applied were public holidays. It is not possible that the Consolidation Officer would have passed an order on a public holiday and amaldaramad of the said order would have again made on a public holiday and the application for certified copy of CH Form 23 would also have been entertained on a public holiday. It is too much of a co-incidence and cannot be believed. ( 8 ) IT is apparent that taking advantage of fact that original record of the said period was not available, forged and fabricated entries of a non-existent order of Consolidation Officer was made in C. H. Form 23 in order to grab the property of Gaon Sabha. However, while making amaldaramad of non-existent order, the petitioner in his wisdom failed to realize that date of orders and date of making amaldaramad were as a matter of fact public holiday. ( 9 ) IN the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the Consolidation Officer rightly came to the findings that the entries in CH Form 23 on which the petitioner based his claim for mutation were forged and fabricated and rightly rejected the application. All the three writ petitions must accordingly, fail and are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. .