Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1397 (ALL)

Pyare Lal v. State of U. P.

2014-04-30

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri R.S. Chaudhary for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Yadav, Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey and Sri Manoj Yadav for the contesting respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Collector, dated 24.09.2007 and Additional Commissioner (Administration), dated 27.12.2010, arising out of proceedings under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The petitioner filed an application on 15.02.2007 before Additional Collector for giving effect to the order dated 27.12.1991, passed under Section 28 of the Act, in the revenue record. The application was heard by Additional Collector, who by order dated 24.09.2007, held that after delay of about 16 years, the order dated 27.12.1991,passed in the proceeding under Section 28 of the Act cannot be complied with. On this finding, the application of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 24.09.2007. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 27.12.2010, held that in the garb of the order relating to correction of map, the petitioner actually wants correction in the revenue record, for which a separate proceeding is provided under the Act. The alleged order for correction of map was passed on 27.12.1991, which cannot be implemented after expiry of about 16 years. On this finding, the revision was also dismissed. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that during consolidation, plot 871 was allotted to the petitioner, while plot 872 was allotted to respondent-5. However, in the map prepared during consolidation, due to mistake, plot 871 was shown at the place of plot 872, as such, he had filed an application under Section 28 of the Act, which was allowed by Additional Collector by order dated 27.12.1991. In spite of the order dated 27.12.1991, the map was not corrected. As such, another application was filed. 5. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the respondent submits that area of plot 871 is recorded as 4-18-13 bigha, in the name of Lokmani (father of the petitioner), while area of plot 872 is recorded as 1-15-13 bigha, in the name of Khunna (father of respondent-5) in final consolidation record and this entry is continuing in the revenue records. In the map, plot 872 is shown by the side of road. In the map, plot 872 is shown by the side of road. In the garb of correction in the map, the petitioner want to come on the road side. The application of the petitioner is malafide. Such relief cannot be granted to the petitioner in summary proceedings of the Act. The application of the petitioner has been rightly dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. It is correct that in case required correction is made in the map, then the plot of the petitioner will come on the roadside and plot of respondent-5 will go behind it. But only for this reason, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be denied. If there is any mistake in preparation of final consolidation map, then it can be corrected in the proceedings under Section 28 of the Act. Section 27 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, itself provides that final record prepared during consolidation can be proved to be incorrect. The finding recorded by Additional Commissioner that correction is required to be made in the record, for which a separate proceeding is required to be taken by the petitioner is not correct. A perusal of the extract of revenue record, it appears that in CH Form 45, plot 871 (area 4-18-13 bigha) was recorded in the name of Lokmani and plot 872 (area 1-15-13 bigha) was recorded in the name of Khunna. Thus, in the record of right, no correction is required. The petitioner prayed for correction in the map made during consolidation. The authorities are required to examine previous settlement map and confirmed map prepared during consolidation. Examining the old plots, which were allotted to the petitioner and respondent-5, this fact can be ascertain as to whether, the chak of the petitioner was situated on the roadside or chak of respondent-5 was situated on roadside. Revenue Courts below have illegally failed to exercise it power as vested in it under law and has illegally rejected the application of the petitioner. 7. So far as the finding of Additional Collector that after expiry of about 16 years, the order dated 27.12.1991 cannot be given effect to is concerned, a perusal of the order dated 27.12.1991 shows that it was an ex parte order. Later on, the respondent also filed an application for recall of the order. 7. So far as the finding of Additional Collector that after expiry of about 16 years, the order dated 27.12.1991 cannot be given effect to is concerned, a perusal of the order dated 27.12.1991 shows that it was an ex parte order. Later on, the respondent also filed an application for recall of the order. Various papers of the petitioner and respondent-5 were not examined for coming to the conclusion that who was allotted chak on roadside. Since the ex parte order was not given effect to for substantially long period, as such, it will not be proper to direct to implement the ex parte order which correctness is being disputed by respondent-5. The finding of Additional Collector in this respect does not appear to be incorrect. 8. According to the petitioner, the old plots which were allotted in the chak of the petitioner, were situated on the road side, while according to respondent-5, he was allotted chak on roadside. Therefore, the controversy between parties only in respect of correction in the final consolidation map. In case, the Collector was not going to implement the earlier order, he should have drawn the fresh proceeding under Section 28 of the Act for correction of the map and after giving opportunity to the affected parties, should have decided the controversy afresh. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is partly allowed. The order of Additional Collector dated 24.09.2007 and order of Additional Commissioner dated 27.12.2010 are set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file a proper application under Section 28 of the Act afresh, before the Collector for correction of the map within a period of two weeks. In case the application is filed, then the Collector/Additional Collector shall decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months thereafter, , after hearing the parties. The parties undertake that they will cooperate and will not take unnecessary adjournments.