Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 236 (UTT)

DIWAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & SIX

2012-05-23

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Delay Condonation Application No.4915 of 2012) Heard learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application. 2. By means of delay condonation application no. 4915 of 2012, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents no. 5 to 7 has prayed to condone the delay in filing the counter affidavit. 3. Delay in filing the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 7 is condoned. The counter affidavit is taken on record. 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- A- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khatima and consequent order dated 26.05.2011 passed by Tehsildar, Khatima along with all the consequential actions taken pursuant to the said impugned orders. B- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate decision on the application submitted by the petitioners before the District Magistrate on 7.10.2011 and 4.11.2011 and consequently take appropriate action against the culprits. C- Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. D- Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are elected members of Village Panchayat Khetalsanda Mustajar, Tehsil Khatima, district Udham Singh Nagar. According to the petitioners, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that in the said village there is a piece of land measuring 1132 bigha, 12 biswa, which is divided into four categories, i.e. reserved forest, Class-4 category, Nala and Class-5 category. Out of that land, land measuring 116 bigha has been declared as reserved forest, 420 bigha land is in unauthorized occupation of respondent no.7 and other similarly situated persons, 20 bigha land has been declared as Nala and remaining 576 bigh and 12 biswa land has been declared as Class-5 (other barren land liable to be used for agricultural purposes). The present disput pertains to the land measuring 576 bigha, 12 biswa = 36.9680 hectares, of which the State Government is the exclusive owner in possession. It has been further stated that the respondent nos. The present disput pertains to the land measuring 576 bigha, 12 biswa = 36.9680 hectares, of which the State Government is the exclusive owner in possession. It has been further stated that the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 are influential persons of the village in question inasmuch as respondent no. 5 is an elected village Pradhan, respondent no.6 is an elected Up-Pradhan and respondent no. 7 is a big landlord, having occupation over 420 bigha land belonging to the State Government. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 prepared a forged agenda, purporting to have been circulated amongst all concerned with an information that a meeting at village level is to be held on 29.3.2011. The alleged agenda was to discuss regarding allotment of Class-5 category land amongst landless persons of the village. According to the petitioners, in the said agenda, forged signatures of the petitioners herein have been manipulated and fabricated with ulterior motive. A copy of the agenda dated 22.3.2011 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioners are further aggrieved as the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 23.5.2011 has allotted the land in question measuring 36.9680 hectares of plot no. 625/1/3, in favour of the 55 ineligible persons who are not landless agricultural labourers and since there is no Land Management Committee in the village, no such order could have been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. 7. The main grounds of challenge raised by the petitioners are that irregularities have been duly communicated to the revenue authorities including the District Magistrate, but no inquiry has been conducted nor any action has been to cancel the lease deeds. 8. This Court by order dated 10.1.2012 admitted the writ petition and directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits. 9. On behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4, counter affidavit has been filed. It has been stated in paragraph 3-F that the Additional District Magistrate conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated 8.12.2011 holding that the Pattas in question have been issued illegally and that recommendation to hold departmental proceedings against the guilty officials was also made. The respondents have annexed copy of report of the Additional District Magistrate dated 8.12.2011 as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. The respondents have annexed copy of report of the Additional District Magistrate dated 8.12.2011 as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. In paragraph 3-G, it has been stated that the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar passed an order dated 16.2.2011 by which all the Pattas issued on 20.5.2011 have been found illegal and non-est and have been declared ineffective. In paragraph no. 3-H, it has been stated that the answering respondents have already taken action against the responsible and guilty revenue officials i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khatima and Tehsildar, Khatima by suspending them and that departmental proceedings are also in process. In paragraph no. 3-I it has been stated that since all the grievances of the petitioners as prayed in the writ petition have been redressed, therefore, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Learned State Counsel has submitted in relief-A the petitioners have prayed for quashing the allotment orders passed by the Up Ziladhikari Khatima and in relief-B, prayer for taking action against the delinquent Officers has been made. Since the allotment orders have been cancelled by the District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar by his order dated 16.2.2012 and the delinquent Officers of the Revenue Department have been placed under suspension after conducting an inquiry into the matter, the writ petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that a complaint was made by the elected members of the village Panchayat to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, pertaining to a resolution passed on 29-3-2011, with a prayer that an inquiry be made against the revenue officials and S.D.M. Khatima by some competent Officer. The petitioners have annexed copy of the complaint as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is also evident that relief B sought in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate decision on the application submitted by the petitioners. 12. From a bare perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Nazul), Udham Singh Nagar to the District Magistrate, it is obvious that the issue under inquiry was allotment of Patta to ineligible 55 persons in Village Panchayat Khetalsand in respect of plot no. 625/1/3, area 3.968 Hectare by Up Ziladhikari Khatima. 13. 12. From a bare perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Nazul), Udham Singh Nagar to the District Magistrate, it is obvious that the issue under inquiry was allotment of Patta to ineligible 55 persons in Village Panchayat Khetalsand in respect of plot no. 625/1/3, area 3.968 Hectare by Up Ziladhikari Khatima. 13. Having gone through the entire material placed before this Court, I am satisfied that the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed by the enquiry having been conducted by the Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on the complaint made by the petitioners herein (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and as a result of the said enquiry, the lease deeds executed in favour of ineligible persons have already been cancelled and the delinquent Officers including Tehsildar Khatima and Up Ziladhikari, Khatima, have been placed under suspension. Copies of suspension orders of the delinquent Officers have been annexed as Annexure CA-4 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find that in view of the assertions made in the counter affidavit along with its annexures, the grievances of the petitioners stand fully redressed, therefore, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a request for time to file rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioners and he has submitted that the petitioners are still willing to contest the writ petition. 16. While parting with the judgment, it finds place to mention here that the petitioners are the elected members of Village Panchayat Khetalsanda Mustajar, Tehsil-Khatima. The petitioners have nowhere stated in the writ petition that they are landless agricultural labourers and that they are entitled for allotment of the land in question. Apart from it, an alternate remedy was available to the petitioners to move an application before the Assistant Collector, In-charge of the Sub Division under sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or sub-Section (4-A) thereof before the Collector, but they have not resorted to the legal remedy available to them in the matter. The petitioners, in my view, are not aggrieved persons from the order impugned in this writ petition. The petitioners, in my view, are not aggrieved persons from the order impugned in this writ petition. Besides, the petitioners were not having any cause of action to file the present writ petition, not being a PIL and since the lease-deeds/Patta granted by the Sub Divisional Officer Khatima have already been cancelled and declared ineffective by the Collector/District Magistrate by his order dated 16.2.2012 and the delinquent Officers have already been placed under suspension and departmental proceedings are in progress against them, therefore, no further cause of action survives in favour of the petitioners at this stage. 17. For what has been stated above, the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit and further pendency or hearing of the writ petition without rhyme or reason would be nothing but wastage of precious time of the Court. In such circumstances, this Court has no option but to reject the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit in the writ petition and to direct each of the petitioners to pay a symbolic cost of Rs. 1,000/- with a total of Rs. 11,000/-. The writ petition also deserves to be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. 18. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The prayer for filing the rejoinder affidavit by the petitioners and to keep the writ petition pending for no reason is rejected. Therefore, each of the 11 petitioners is directed to pay a symbolic cost of Rs. 1000/- (total Rs. 11000/-) to be payable within a period of four weeks from today in the Registry of this Court. The cost so deposited shall be used for mediation purpose. If the cost is not paid by the petitioners within the stipulated period of four weeks, the Registrar General will make a request to the concerned Collector to recover the same as arrears of land revenue from the petitioners.