Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1276 (ALL)

Gore Khan v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial)

2014-04-21

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, assisted by Sri Vikrant Gupta for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed against the orders Sub-Divisional Officer dated 14.5,2012, directing to delete the name of the petitioner from the land in dispute and Additional Commissioner dated 28.11.2013, dismissing the revision of the petitioner, arising out of proceedings under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 2. It has been stated that Ram Chandar son of Banke Lal was recorded tenure holder of plots 562 (area 0.534 hectare) and 563 (area 0.164 hectare), situated in village Thothar, tahsil and district Rampur. Ram Chandar entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.3.1980 in favour of the petitioner of the aforesaid plots and delivered possession. On the basis of an agreement to sell, as well as possession over the land in dispute, the name of the petitioner was recorded over it. 3. Tahsildar submitted a report that the name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute without any order of competent authority. Previously name of Ram Chandar was recorded as non-occupancy tenant over the land in dispute. In khatauni 1415F, Lekhpal has wrongly recorded the name of the petitioner as bhumidhar of the land in dispute. On the aforesaid report, Sub-Divisional Officer, by an ex parte order dated 14.5.2012, directed to delete the name of the petitioner and record the land in dispute in the name of State of U.P. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order. Before the Revisional Court, the petitioner argued that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing. However, Revisional Court has held that as the entry of the name of the petitioner was a forged entry, as such, opportunity of hearing was not required to be given and dismissed the revision by order dated 28.11.2013. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ram Chandar was non-occupancy tenant of the land in dispute since before the date of vesting. Ram Chandar entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.3.1980 in favour of the petitioner and delivered possession over the aforesaid plots. On the basis of an agreement to sell, as well as possession over the land in dispute, the name of the petitioner was recorded over it. Ram Chandar entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.3.1980 in favour of the petitioner and delivered possession over the aforesaid plots. On the basis of an agreement to sell, as well as possession over the land in dispute, the name of the petitioner was recorded over it. Entry has been expunged without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The orders of the revenue authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. The land in dispute was within erstwhile Rampur State and governed by the provisions of Rampur Tenancy Act, 1937. In the report, submitted by Tahsildar, it has been noticed that the land in dispute was earlier trenching ground of Rampur Municipality. By order dated 15.4.2014, the Counsel for the petitioner was asked to inform as to what right accrued to Ram Chandar over the trenching ground of the Municipality under the Rampur Tenancy Act, 1937. The Counsel for the petitioner has produced Rampur Tenancy Act 1937. Under section 14 of the Act, certain exceptions have been given for acquiring asami rights. In Exception Clause 'Sa', the trenching ground of Municipality has been mentioned. As such, under Rampur Tenancy Act, 1937, no right of asami on the basis of possession over Municipal trenching ground, was conferred and Ram Chandar was recorded as non-occupancy tenant, who had no transferable right. 6. It is not clear as to whether zamindari of the land in dispute was abolished or not. In case zamindari is not abolished, Ram Chandar had no transferable right under Rampur Tenancy Act, 1937. In case, zamindari was abolished, then under section 21, he had become asami, who also does not have transferable right. Therefore, on the date of vesting, the properties have vested in State of U.P. and only on the basis of agreement to sell and possession, no right can be granted to the petitioner as neither non-occupancy tenant nor asami has transferable right. The name of the petitioner has been wrongly recorded as bhumidhar of the land in dispute. There is no illegality directing to delete the name of the petitioner from the land in dispute. As the petitioner could not substantiate his right over the land in dispute, as such, no interference is required by this Court. 7. The name of the petitioner has been wrongly recorded as bhumidhar of the land in dispute. There is no illegality directing to delete the name of the petitioner from the land in dispute. As the petitioner could not substantiate his right over the land in dispute, as such, no interference is required by this Court. 7. So far as the arguments that no opportunity of hearing was given before passing the impugned order is concerned, Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta , (2003) 7 SCC 492 , held that the concept of principles of natural justice has undergone a radical change. It is not in every case, that the High Courts would entertain a writ application only on the ground that violation of principles of natural justice has been alleged. The person complaining about the violation of the principles of natural justice must show causation of a prejudice against him by reason of such violation. In view of the aforesaid discussion no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.