Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 133 (ALL)

CHET RAM v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-01-13

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—I have heard Sri Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. Learned Standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri D.D. Chauhan who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 5 are present. 2. Parties have exchanged pleadings and apart from counter and rejoinder-affidavits a supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the parties agreed for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 4. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer and the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner in revision thereto. The aforesaid orders allow the application of the respondent No. 4 under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of the map. 5. The petitioners are owners of plot No. 237 whereas respondent No. 4 is the owner of plot No. 224. 6. Respondent No. 4 applied under Section 28 of the Act for correction of map on the ground that the area of his plot shown in the map is less than the actual area. The application was registered as case No. 69/190 of 2008-09. A report was called for and it was reported that the area of plot of respondent No. 4 is less and there is some extra land in the plot of the petitioners. The application was allowed but in revision the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision afresh. On remand Chief Revenue Officer vide order dated 13.7.2009 again allowed the application of the respondent No. 4. Petitioners revision before the Commissioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed on 19.10.2011. 7. Impugning the aforesaid orders, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the valuable land of the petitioners on the road side has been taken away and the finding that their plot No. 237 has an extra area is perverse. 8. Petitioners revision before the Commissioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed on 19.10.2011. 7. Impugning the aforesaid orders, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the valuable land of the petitioners on the road side has been taken away and the finding that their plot No. 237 has an extra area is perverse. 8. A perusal of the impugned orders and the report reveal that the area of plot No. 224 which belongs to the respondent No. 4 is short of 5 biswa 14 dhoor in area and is not accordance with the verified map (pustikrit bhoochitra) and that there is some extra land in plot Nos. 235, 236 and 237. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact which has been returned by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to establish that the aforesaid finding is perverse. Actually, he is unable to controvert that the aforesaid plots especially plot No. 237 is not having extra area. 9. In view of the aforesaid finding, it was but natural to compensate the lesser area of plot No. 224 from the extra land of plot Nos. 235,236 and 237. The amendment proposed in the map by the consolidator by adjustment of land of the above plot Nos. 235, 236 and 237 bring the plots of both the parties in consonance with the verified map and the map prepared during consolidation. Thus, there is no error of law in the orders passed by the Courts below and as such I am of the opinion that there is no miscarriage of justice to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the matter. 10. It may be noteworthy that proceedings under Section 28 of the Act are within the realm of a summary proceedings and if anyone is aggrieved by the order passed therein or the order passed in revision thereto, he has a remedy of filing a suit before the competent Court. Thus, the parties litigating under Section 28 of the Act, even after availing the remedy of revision, have an alternative remedy to get their rights adjudicated by filing suit. 11. Thus, the parties litigating under Section 28 of the Act, even after availing the remedy of revision, have an alternative remedy to get their rights adjudicated by filing suit. 11. In this view of the matter, this Court in the case of Brahma Deo v. Board of Revenue, 1986 RD 302, held that writ petition challenging the order passed in revision arising from proceedings under Section 28 of the Act is not maintainable and a regular suit is the proper remedy. 12. No contrary decision has been cited. 13. In view of the aforesaid and the legal position stated above, I decline to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of the suit, if so advised. ——————