Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3223 (ALL)

Sirataj v. Board of Revenue

2014-10-28

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri O.P. Singh Sikarwar, for the petitioners, Standing Counsel, for State of U.P., Sri T.M. Khan, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Sri Rama Kant Shukla, for respondent-5. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Chief Revenue Officer dated 27.5.2008, directing to delete the names of the petitioners from the land in dispute, Sub-Divisional Officer dated 15.7.2013, rejecting the recall applications of the petitioners and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 19.12.2013, dismissing the revision of the petitioners, passed in proceedings under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Heera Lal Dhar Dubey (respondent-5) filed an application before the Collector for deleting the names of the petitioners from plots 305 (old plot 158) (area 0.34 acre) and 306 (old plot 159) (area 0.30 acre) of village Senduli Benduli, tahsil and district Gorakhpur. On this application, the Collector by order dated 15.12.2005 called for a report from Tahsildar. Tahsildar submitted a report that in khatauni 1379-F-1381-F, plot 158 (area 0.34 acre) and plot 159 (area 0.30 acre) were recorded as "navin parati". In khatauni 1382-F-1384-F, plot 158 (area 0.34 acre) was recorded as "navin parati" and in remark column an amal daramad has been made mutating the name of Sirtaj son of Pale on the basis of alleged order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 28.2.1976, on the basis of registered agreement as sirdar and plot 159 (area 0.30 acre) were recorded as "navin parati" and in remark column an amal daramad has been made mutating the name of Mahanand son of Dhunmun on the basis of alleged order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 28.2.1976 on the basis of registered agreement as sirdar. The record relating to the aforesaid cases were not available in the record room. The aforesaid plots were in the shape of dam and dam patari on the spot. In second consolidation, in CH Form-2-A, gadaha, dam and dam patari were noted against the aforesaid plots. These plots were chak out and after consolidation new numbers 305 was allotted to plot 158 and 306 was allotted to plot 159. After death of Mahanand, names of his sons Brij Bihari, Shankar, Heera and Rajan were recorded. Dam and dam patari were still on spot. Names of Sirtaj and Mahanand were recorded by making forgery in the revenue record and liable to be deleted. After death of Mahanand, names of his sons Brij Bihari, Shankar, Heera and Rajan were recorded. Dam and dam patari were still on spot. Names of Sirtaj and Mahanand were recorded by making forgery in the revenue record and liable to be deleted. This report was forwarded by Sub-Divisional Officer. Chief Revenue Officer by order dated 27.5.2008 approved the report and directed to delete the names of the petitioners from the land in dispute. 3. Sirtaj and Brij Bihari (petitioners-1 and 2), Shankar and Heera (petitioners-3 and 4), Smt. Chandra Prabha Singh (petitioner-6), Smt. Indrawati Devi and Smt. Kamla Devi (petitioners-5 and 8) and Mithai filed their separate recall applications for recalling the order dated 27.5.2008. All the recall applications were consolidated and heard together by Sub-Divisional Officer, who by order dated 15.7.2013 held that land in dispute is at present dam and dam patari as such it could not be allotted. The alleged allotment was not approved by Sub-Divisional Officer. Amal daramads made in the revenue record are not proved to have been made in accordance with law. The names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records after making forgery as such they were not required to be given opportunity of hearing before deleting the forged entries. On these findings, recall applications were dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2583/LR/2012-13) from the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by Board of Revenue U.P. by order dated 19.12.2013. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Land Management Committee granted patta dated 20.2.1976 to Sirtaj of plot 158 (area 0.34 acre) and to Mahanand of plot 159 (area 0.30 acre). On the basis of the patta,' names of Sirtaj and Mahanand were mutated in revenue record by order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 28.2.1976. Thereafter, village was placed in consolidation operation and entries of the names of Sirtaj and Mahanand were maintained. After expiry of period of 10 years, Sirtaj and Mahanand acquired bhumidhar with transferable right over the land in dispute. Thereafter, village was placed in consolidation operation and entries of the names of Sirtaj and Mahanand were maintained. After expiry of period of 10 years, Sirtaj and Mahanand acquired bhumidhar with transferable right over the land in dispute. With the permission of the Collector, Smt. Indrawati (petitioner-5) purchased plot 305 through registered sale-deed dated 6.6.2003, Amar Nath Singh (petitioner-7) purchased plot 306 through sale-deed dated 6.6.2003, a part of plot 305 was purchased by Smt. Kamla Devi (petitioner-8) through sale deed dated 22.2.2003 and Smt. Chandra Prabha Singh ((petitioner-6) also purchased a part of plot 306 through sale-deed dated 25.11.2003. Earlier, Heera Lal Dhar Dubey filed an application under section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for cancellation of pattas dated 20.2.1976 and could not succeed. However, names of the petitioners were deleted in exercise of powers under section 33/39of the Act. He submits that names of Sirtaj and Mahanand were mutated on the basis of patta and entry was maintained during consolidation operation and such an entry could not be deleted in exercise of powers under section 33/39 of the Act. In any case order dated 27.5.2008 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. Record relating to allotment of the land was in possession of the respondents and they have mala fide withheld the record. Allegation that patta granted to Sirtaj and Mahanand were not approved by Sub-Divisional Officer is not correct. Heera Lal Dhar Dubey had no locus standi to file application for deleting the names of the petitioners. The orders passed by the Courts below are illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. In previous consolidation, land in dispute was left as "navin parati". Thereafter, State of U.P. has constructed dam over the land in dispute in order to prevent fluvial action of river Rapti. Land in dispute was fully occupied by dam and dam patari and some portion of it was converted into pit on the spot as is proved from CH Form-2-A prepared during second consolidation operation. Thereafter, State of U.P. has constructed dam over the land in dispute in order to prevent fluvial action of river Rapti. Land in dispute was fully occupied by dam and dam patari and some portion of it was converted into pit on the spot as is proved from CH Form-2-A prepared during second consolidation operation. Land Management Committee has no right to allot the land in dispute to Sirtaj and Mahanand, which was in fact dam and dam patari owned by State of U.P. Land in dispute was not vacant on the spot on the date of alleged allotment There is no evidence on record to controvert the findings that alleged pattas dated 20.2.1976 granted to Sirtaj and Mahanand were approved by Sub-Divisional Officer. No right can accrue to any person over dam and dam patari even if some cultivation was made on it. Impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.