Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3643 (ALL)

Kailash Nath Singh v. State of U. P.

2009-12-02

ANIL KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.9.1998, passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad, opposite party No. 2, in pursuant to which amaldaramad was made in the khatauni for 1404 to 1409 fasli year in respect of plot No. 477 situate in village Banveerpur, Faizabad under Section 117 (1), U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as an ‘Act’) by the State Government for constructing the building in the name of Gautam Buddh Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya Banveerpur, Faizabad and expunging the name of the petitioner from the said plot from the revenue records. 2. Heard Sri I. D. Shukla, holding brief of Sri S. K. Mehrotra learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nirmal Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, Sri R. N. Gupta learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 and Sri Mahesh Chandra appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 4 and 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy in present case relates to plot No. 477 (new) (old plot No. 622) measuring 7 bigha and one bishwa situate in village Banveerpur district Faizabad was allotted by way of patta in favour of the petitioner on 30.5.1960 by the Land Management Committee of Village Banveerpur, Faizabad. After allotment of patta in respect of the plot in question, amaldaramad was made in favour of the petitioner in namantaran bahi on 8.7.1986 and thereafter with effect from 13.9.1986 the petitioner was in possession of the plot in question. 4. On 6.2.1992, the Sub-Divisional Officer while exercising his power under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, passed an order on the basis of ex parte report of Naib Tehsildar, Sadar for expunging the entry in the name of the petitioner from the plot in question. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the said authority by means of order dated 23.1.1993, referred the matter in question to the Board of Revenue to set aside the order dated 6.2.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Faizabad. 6. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the said authority by means of order dated 23.1.1993, referred the matter in question to the Board of Revenue to set aside the order dated 6.2.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Faizabad. 6. By order dated 6.8.1998, the Board of Revenue accepted the reference made by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad, set aside the order dated 6.2.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Faizabad and remanded the matter in question to the trial court to decide afresh. 7. Further, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue (revenue court) had recorded a finding that the patta was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect to the plot in dispute. Thus, the fact of allotment of the land in dispute by patta in favour of the petitioner was accepted by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 6.8.1998 and further before the Board of Revenue the arguments which were raised by the opposite parties were to the effect that the record relating to the allotment of land in question by way of patta was not available with them and in view of the said arguments, the Board of Revenue in its order dated 6.8.1998 had held that the responsibility for maintaining the revenue record was of the Collector and not of the allottee. Moreover, in the order dated 6.8.1998, it was observed by the Board of Revenue that if there was a dispute in respect of cancellation of patta, the same can be challenged under the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act for cancelling the patta and in view of the said fact it was held that the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was under challenge before the Board of Revenue vitiates as no opportunity of leading the evidence and hearing was given to the petitioner and in view of the said fact the order under challenge before the Board of Revenue was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to decide the same. 8. 8. After remand of the matter by the Board of Revenue to the trial court when the same was pending adjudication, the Collector, Faizabad, passed an order dated 15.9.1998 under Section 117 (6) of the Act by which the patta in dispute was ordered to be recorded in the name of Gautam Buddha Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya in the revenue record, was an action which was wholly arbitrary. 9. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 15.9.1998 was passed by opposite party No. 2 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and behind his back. On 31.7.1999, when the petitioner came to know through Lekhpal about the order dated 15.9.1998, he applied certified copy of the said order on 2.8.1999 but the folio was returned back to the petitioner stating that the said order was an administrative order and its certified copy cannot be issued. 10. In view of the abovesaid factual matrix, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.9.1998, passed by the opposite party No. 2 on the following points : (a) The petitioner was duly granted the lease hold rights in the above referred plot No. 477 (new) corresponding the old plot No. 662 by the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha concerned and, thereafter, he is fully entitled to hold and remain in possession of the same. (b) Even if the resumption order passed by the Collector, Faizabad under Section 117 (6) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act is held to be binding on the Gaon Sabha the lease hold rights of the petitioner over the plot in dispute cannot be held as extinguished and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his rights and possession over the above plot. (c) The ground on which the patta can be challenged only in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act for cancellation. (d) The entry in favour of the petitioner existing in the revenue record based on the basis of patta was expunged by ex parte order dated 6.2.1992 invoking the provisions of 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus, the said order cannot be sustained under law. (d) The entry in favour of the petitioner existing in the revenue record based on the basis of patta was expunged by ex parte order dated 6.2.1992 invoking the provisions of 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus, the said order cannot be sustained under law. (e) The contemplated construction of the college building on the above plot is absolutely illegal being ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as it is not only arbitrary but also tends to deprive the petitioner of his right to livelihood from the land in dispute. 11. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments : (1) Ram Pati and others v. District Judge, Mirzapur and others, 1986 All LJ 196. (2) M/s. Mahalakshmi Land and Finance Co. (Private) Limited v. Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow and others, 1997 (15) LCD 273. (3) Hari Ram v. Collector, District Saharanpur/Addl. Collector and others, 2004 (97) RD 360 : 2005 (1) AWC 758 . (4) Smt. Kunti and others v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others, 2009 (27) LCD 1189 : 2009 (3) AWC 2613 . 12. Sri Nirmal Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and Sri R. N. Gupta for opposite party No. 3 Gaon Sabha has submitted that the plot in question has never been given to the petitioner by way of granting alleged lease deed by Gaon Sabha, Banveerpur. The alleged lease deed (patta) is absolutely a forged and fabricated document. Neither any record in respect of resolution of Gaon Sabha nor record relating to alleged approval of Assistant Collector or any record relating to the proceedings in respect of allotment is available, thus, the patta alleged to have been issued on 30.3.1960 is a forged and fabricated document and the petitioner cannot get any right on the basis of the same. 13. It has further been submitted that the lease deed was never acted upon during the period of consolidation proceedings of the village Banveerpur (from 1968 to 1977). The petitioner never made any effort for mutation over the land in question which was entered in the name of Gaon Sabha. 13. It has further been submitted that the lease deed was never acted upon during the period of consolidation proceedings of the village Banveerpur (from 1968 to 1977). The petitioner never made any effort for mutation over the land in question which was entered in the name of Gaon Sabha. The village was notified in the year 1977 and, therefore, the allegation regarding the amaldaramad allegedly made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was also incorrect a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition was absolutely a forged and fabricated document. 14. Further, on the basis of the same, no order could have been passed in respect of the land in question regarding mutation in the name of the petitioner as after the de-notification of the village which took place in the year 1977 there was a bar of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation Act. 15. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector, Sohawal (trial court) had passed an order dated 10.1.2002 in compliance of the order dated 6.8.1998, passed by the Board of Revenue by which it is absolutely clear that the said document filed by the petitioner was absolutely forged and fabricated one and as such no reliance can be placed on the same so the order dated 10.1.2002 was rightly passed. In these circumstances, the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act after calling the report from Supervisor Kanoongo and Nayab Tehsildar, who had recommended in their report that the name of the petitioner be expunged from the land in question. Further, as the patta in question is forged and fabricated document thus the conclusion as drawn by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act in respect of cancellation of patta does not arise was perfectly valid and in accordance with law. 16. Further, as the patta in question is forged and fabricated document thus the conclusion as drawn by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act in respect of cancellation of patta does not arise was perfectly valid and in accordance with law. 16. So keeping in view the above said facts, the order dated 15.9.1998 was passed by opposite party No. 2 by which amaldaramad had been made in the revenue record in the name of Gautam Buddha Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya and the said action is perfectly valid and further thereafter on the land in question the construction of the Government Girls Degree College had started and completed upto the plinth level but due to the interim order passed in the present writ petition, the same had been stopped as a result of which entire purpose to construct Girls Degree College of imparting education to the girls upto the degree level is being frustrated and the petitioner had never been in physical possession over the land in question. 17. In view of the said fact, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner be vacated as he has got no right or locus in the matter in dispute and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into operation with effect from 24.1.1951 and zamindari was abolished on 1st July, 1952. After abolition of zamindari, the land in question was recorded as Gaon Sabha property in fasli year 1360. 20. As alleged by the petitioner that the Land Management Committee (Gaon Sabha) on 30.5.1960, had granted the patta to the petitioner in respect of the plot in question for the area seven bigha and one biswa of land and he is in possession of the same since then. 20. As alleged by the petitioner that the Land Management Committee (Gaon Sabha) on 30.5.1960, had granted the patta to the petitioner in respect of the plot in question for the area seven bigha and one biswa of land and he is in possession of the same since then. In that circumstances, the petitioner should have taken steps to get his name entered into the revenue record but the land in question remain in the name of Gaon Sabha in the revenue record further thereafter the village in question had come under consolidation operation from 1968 to 1977 (fasli year 1375 to fasli year 1384) and de-notified in the year 1977 under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation Act, 1953. During the said intervening period, the land in question was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha in the revenue record even then the petitioner had not taken any steps whatsoever to get his name recorded in the revenue record on the ground that the patta is executed in his favour on 30.5.1960. 21. In view of the above said facts, it is clearly established that the patta was never executed in favour of the petitioner. If the same had been executed in his favour then in that circumstances, the petitioner must have taken steps to get his name recorded in the revenue record during the period stated above. But, in fact, the land in question was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as such, in view of the provisions as provided under Section 27 of the Consolidation Act, the land in question belongs to Gaon Sabha meaning thereby the land in question was never allotted by way of patta in favour of the petitioner by the Land Management Committee (Gaon Sabha) on 30.5.1960. 22. In addition to above said fact, the relevant provision which govern for admission of persons on land by way of patta which belongs to Gaon Sabha is provided under Section 198 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The relevant provisions of Section 198 of the Act quoted below : “198. 22. In addition to above said fact, the relevant provision which govern for admission of persons on land by way of patta which belongs to Gaon Sabha is provided under Section 198 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The relevant provisions of Section 198 of the Act quoted below : “198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197.—(1) In the admission of persons to land as (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights) or asami under Section 195 or Section 197 (hereafter in this section referred to as allotment of land) the Land Management Committee shall, subject to any order made by a Court under Section 178 observe the following order of preference : (a) landless widow, sons, unmarried daughters or parents residing in the circle of a person who has lost his life by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union ; (b) a person residing in the circle, who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union ; (c) a landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe ; (d) any other landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle ; (e) a bhumidhar, [* * *] or asami residing in the circle and holding land-less than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres) ; (f) a landless persons residing in the circle who is retired, released or discharged from service other than service as an officer in the Armed Forces of the Union ; and (g) a landless freedom fighter residing in the circle who has not been granted political pension. 23. From the perusal of the above said provisions for allotment of land by way of patta which belongs to Gaon Sabha the land can only be allotted to a person who resides in the same village and fulfils the relevant criteria mentioned therein. 24. In the present case, as per the admitted fact by the petitioner himself he is not the resident of village Banveerpur where the land is situated but his ‘sasural’ is at village Banveerpur so the petitioner was not entitled for allotment of the land in question by way of patta under Section 198 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. On 28.7.2009, this Court had passed the following orders : “By hearing of the learned counsel for the parties, the validity of the patta is to be looked into by this Court which is challenged by the opposite parties on the ground that it has never been executed. The patta relates to the year 1960. In this view of the matter, the opposite parties are directed to produce patta allotment file of the year 1960 in respect of village Banveerpur, Tehsil Sohawal, district Faizabad. The petitioner will also place on record by way of supplementary-affidavit a copy of the resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha, if any, contained in the register of the Gaon Sabha. List on 27th August, 2009.” 25. In response to the same, learned standing counsel has produced the record in respect of the matter in question and in the record there was no order of allotment of patta in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, this Court has given opportunity to the petitioner to file copy of the resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha by which the land in question was allotted in his favour by way of patta but inspite of the same he failed to do so. As such the alleged assertion made by the petitioner that patta was granted in his favour by Gaon Sabha on 30.5.1960 is totally incorrect and wrong and as the matter of fact from the perusal of record it was clearly established that no patta was granted in his favour. 26. The next argument which is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the alleged patta which is allotted to the petitioner by the Land Management Committee (Gaon Sabha) on 3.5.1960 and an entry was made in favour of the petitioner in namantaran bahi, for the fasli year 1394 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) in pursuance to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar dated 18.7.1998 in respect to plot No. 662 area 7 bighas and 1 biswa. The said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force because as per the precedent the entry in the revenue record (namantaran bahi) is recorded on the basis of an order passed by the competent court of law by Tehsildar and not by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force because as per the precedent the entry in the revenue record (namantaran bahi) is recorded on the basis of an order passed by the competent court of law by Tehsildar and not by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the present case, the entry in revenue record (namantaran bahi) in favour of the petitioner was made without being any order passed by any competent revenue court in that regard and that too by Sub-Divisional Officer who is not competent to do so. This fact goes to show that entry which is made in namantaran bahi (Annexure-2) is forged entry. 27. Further the said document itself proof that till 8.7.1986 (1393 fasli) the name of the petitioner was not entered in the revenue record even during consolidation operation (1375 fasli till 1384 fasli) the property continued in the name of Gaon Sabha and also after the close of consolidation proceedings till 8.7.1986 (1393 fasli) which establish that patta was never granted to the petitioner. 28. Moreover, the said documents namantaran bahi of fasli year 1394 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was a manipulated document prepared by way of fraud as by the said document, the name of the petitioner was recorded as ‘sirdar’ the same cannot be done in view of the fact that U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended by way of Act No. 18 of 1977, w.e.f. 24.1.1977 whereby sirdari was abolished and only two clause of tenure holders were there, i.e., bhumidhar with transferable rights and bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. So the petitioner cannot be recorded as ‘sirdar’ in respect of the land in question on the basis of patta. In these circumstances, so called patta which has been relied by the petitioner was forged and fabricated document. 29. It is settled principles of law that no action Court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim because fraud and justice never dwell together. (Frans at jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. 30. In Smith v. East Elloe, Rural Distt. (Frans at jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. 30. In Smith v. East Elloe, Rural Distt. Council, (1956) I All ER 855, the House of Lord held that the effect of fraud would normally be to vitiate any act or order. 31. In another case Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341, Denning, L. J. said : “No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.” 32. In the case of Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Private Limited, (1996) 5 SCC 550 : 1997 (1) AWC 2.18 (SC) (NOC), Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration above two judicial pronouncement had held as under : “The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151, C.P.C., to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the Tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court’s business. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceeding of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practiced upon that Court. 33. In the case of A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 and Budhia Swain and others v. Gopinath Deb and others, (1999) 4 SCC 396 . 33. In the case of A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 and Budhia Swain and others v. Gopinath Deb and others, (1999) 4 SCC 396 . Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held under following conditions matter/judgment can be reopened : “(i) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary partly had not been served at all and was shown as served or in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had died and the estate was not represented ; (ii) a judgment was obtained by fraud ; and (iii) a party has had no notice and a decree was made against him and such party approaches the Court for setting aside the decision ex debito justitiae on proof of the fact that there was no service.” 34. In the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, 1994 (1) SCC 1 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held : “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal-observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non exist in the eyes of law. Such a judgment decree by the first Court or by the highest court-has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.” 35. The aforesaid view is further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Rajendra Singh and others, 2000 (18) LCD 586 : 2000 (2) AWC 1349 (SC). 36. In the light of the above said fact and on the basis of the report submitted by Lekhpal passed on 5.2.1992 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Faizabad had rightly expunged the entry made in favour of the petitioner in the revenue record by order dated 6.2.1992 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). 36. In the light of the above said fact and on the basis of the report submitted by Lekhpal passed on 5.2.1992 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Faizabad had rightly expunged the entry made in favour of the petitioner in the revenue record by order dated 6.2.1992 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Further, after remission of the proceedings by the Board of Revenue by order dated 6.8.1998, the proceedings had started in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Faizabad but the petitioner had filed the present writ petition and in view of the stay order which was passed by the this Court in the present case, the petitioner moved an application and on the basis of the stay order the proceedings before the trial court was stayed and no adjudication was done on merit, so the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the finding given by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 6.8.1998. 37. Once, the patta in question is forged and fabricated document and on the basis of the same with oblique motive and purpose with male fide intention the petitioner had played fraud in the present case so the assertion as made by the petitioner that opportunity of hearing had not been given to him prior to expunging his name from the revenue record by order dated 15.9.1988, passed by opposite party No. 2 is wholly misconceived argument and liable to be rejected as he was not entitled for any hearing because the fraud has been played by the petitioner and the person who played fraud is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing. 38. In the case of Ram Shiroman and others v. D.D.C., Allahabad and others, 1987 RD 387 : 1987 (1) AWC 218, this Court has held that if entries in records on which petitioners claimed title were fictitious, forged and fraudulent, the petitioners rights over disputed plots thus vanished and no question of violation of principles of natural justice in not affording opportunities to petitioners by consolidation authorities thus arose while deciding the dispute. 39. In the case of U. P. Junior Doctors’ Action Committee v. Dr. 39. In the case of U. P. Junior Doctors’ Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and others, AIR 1991 SC 909 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a selection has been done on the basis of fake order then no question whatsoever arises to give an opportunity of hearing while cancelling the admission as the admission has been obtained by way of fraud. In view of the said facts, the petitioner cannot avail any benefit from the judgment which is cited by him in the case of Smt. Kunti and others v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others, 2009 (27) LCD 1189 : 2009 (3) AWC 2613 . 40. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings for cancellation of the patta in his favour under Section 198 (4) of the Act has to be initiated but the same has not been done therefore there is no justification for cancellation of patta arises and accordingly the order dated 15.9.1998, passed by opposite party No. 2 is arbitrary, has got no force. In the present case, patta is forged and fabricated document so conclusion as drawn by the Assistant Collector that there was no question for initiating the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act in respect of the cancellation of patta arises was valid and correct findings and the same are in accordance with law. Further, the judgment relied by the petitioner in support of his submission made in this regard in Ram Pati and others v. District Judge, Mirzapur and others, 1986 All LJ 196, is not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the present case. 41. Last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the patta has been granted in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioner by Gaon Sabha, the same cannot be cancelled in view of the provision under Sections 171 (1) and 171 (6) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and in this regard he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the cases of Ram Pati and others v. District Judge, Mirzapur and others, 1986 All LJ 196 and Hari Ram v. Collector, District Saharanpur/ Addl. Collector and others, 2004 (97) RD 360 : 2005 (1) AWC 758 , has also got no force as in the present case, the patta was never executed/granted in favour of the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha and the same is forged and fabricated documents. So the procedure as provided under Sections 171 (1) and 171 (6) of the Act will not come in picture and thus there is no requirement under law to follow the procedure as provided therein. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 42. For the forging reasons, the writ petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Interim order granted in favour of the petitioner stands vacated.