Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1650 (ALL)

Tauqir Alam v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-07-11

SHISHIR KUMAR

body2011
Hon’ble Shishir Kumar,J.—Heard Shri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 29.08.2000 and 09.09.1997 (Annexure 1 and Annexure 8 to the writ petition). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner is a Bhumidhar of Khata No. 1306, Khasra No. 1815 having an area of 0.506 hectares situated at village Dhaulana, Pargana Dasna, Teshil-Hapur, District-Ghaziabad. The land in question was allotted by Land Management Committee vide its resolution dated 25.07.1988 for allotment of Usar land in favour of 52 persons including the petitioner. Proceeding for allotment of patta was approved by respondent no. 4 vide its order dated 24.08.1988. In pursuance of the said allotment, the possession of the property was given to the petitioner. It appears that the Gaon Pradhan of the village made an application on 01.09.1997 under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act for correction of the revenue record as it is a Gaon Sabha land. On this application, on the basis of reports submitted by the Tehsildar concerned, the S.D.M. concerned has passed an order on 09.09.1997 directing that the name of the petitioner be deleted from the revenue record and the name of Gaon Sabha be recorded. Petitioner submits that before passing the said order no notice or opportunity was ever given to him. Petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed a revision, but the revision too have been dismissed without considering the relevant record to the effect regarding valid resolution approved by the S.D.M. concerned regarding grant of patta in favour of the petitioner. The revisional court clubbed various revisions filed by various persons and vide its order dated 29.08.2000 dismissed the revision including the revision filed by petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly on the basis of resolution of the Land Management Committee after obtaining the report the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner and it was approved by the S.D.M. concerned and in pursuance of the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner the possession was handed over. Uptil 1997 petitioner was in peaceful possession of the property in question and nobody has interrupted in the possession of the petitioner. Uptil 1997 petitioner was in peaceful possession of the property in question and nobody has interrupted in the possession of the petitioner. Further submission has been made that in case, there was some discrepancy or according to the respondents, if proper procedure was not followed in spite of the aforesaid fact a notice or opportunity should have been given before passing the order on an application made by the Pradhan concerned under Sections 33 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act before deleting the name of the petitioner from the revenue record. Further submission has been made that application itself was not maintainable, it should have been filed under Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for cancellation of patta. The revisional court has also committed an error and has not considered the issue which was submitted before the revisional court. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, the respondents have not denied the fact that any opportunity was ever given to the petitioner. The respondents have come with a case that as there was a wrong entry in favour of the petitioner and property belongs to Gaon Sabha, therefore, the application under Sections 33 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act was maintainable. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 7. On a perusal of the document, it appears that on 18.08.1988 some proceedings were initiated and subsequently, an approval was granted by the S.D.M. concerned to the resolution dated 25.07.1988 regarding allotment of patta in favour of about 52 persons. If the Pradhan of the village was of the opinion that patta was not properly granted then he should have filed an application for cancellation of the said patta in spite of the fact, the application was filed under Sections 33 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act. Admittedly the petitioner was in possession of the property in dispute and his name was recorded, as such following the principles of natural justice an opportunity ought to have been given before passing the order impugned. From the record it does not appear that any notice or opportunity was ever given to the petitioner. The revisional court has also not considered the said issue in a prospective manner. From the record it does not appear that any notice or opportunity was ever given to the petitioner. The revisional court has also not considered the said issue in a prospective manner. The papers relating to the allotment of patta filed before the revisional court has also not been considered. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the respondents dated 29.08.2000 and 09.09.1997 are not sustainable in law, it is hereby quashed. 9. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 4 to pass appropriate orders after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and after taking into consideration all the relevant records that too within a period of three months by a speaking and reasoned order. (Petition allowed) _____________