Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2173 (ALL)

Dinesh v. State of U. P.

2015-07-29

RAJES KUMAR, SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioners claimed that they are the owner of the land of Khasra No. 1455 Rakba 1.05 hec., which has been acquired by the State Government for respondent no.4. In respect of which, the petitioners claimed compensation. The Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Gautam Budha Nagar has asked the petitioners to file the documents to verify the transfer of title to them. The Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) has directed the petitioners to file the extract of the Khatauni, in which the property was recorded as custodian property; the extract of Khatauni, on which the names of the auction purchaser were entered on the basis of sale certificate issued in the year 1976 by the office of the custodian; the details of the auction proceedings, and the details of the registration of the sale certificate in the concerned office of the Sub-Registrar. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 51957 of 2010 seeking mandamus to release the compensation. The writ Court vide order dated 30.3.2011 disposed of the writ petition with the following observation : "We do not find any fault with the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) in verifying the claims before payment the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners undertake that they will file all the relevant documents to the satisfaction of the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) , which have not been filed earlier, within a period of one month. The Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) will decide the application for payment of compensation within one month thereafter." 3. In pursuance of the order of this Court the petitioners filed representation which has been disposed of vide impugned order dated 6.6.2011. The Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) will decide the application for payment of compensation within one month thereafter." 3. In pursuance of the order of this Court the petitioners filed representation which has been disposed of vide impugned order dated 6.6.2011. The representation of the petitioners claiming compensation has been disposed of with the following observation : " vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd xkVk la0 1455 ds ewy Lokeh eqlEekr vYyknh csok jgerqYyk Fkh] tks ckn esa fu"dzkUr lEifRr ntZ gqbZA Loa; izR;kosnd Hkwfe dks ewy : i ls fu"dzkUr lEifRr ntZ gksuk Lohdkj djrk gS] ftldk dfFkr lsy lfVZfQdsV dh Nk;k izfr layXu dh gS fdUrq ewy izfr ckj&ckj ekWxs tkus ds ckotwn izLrqr ugha dh xbZA lsy lfVZfQdsV esa bUnzkt] jsorh izlkn] NRrj] us=iky flag dk uke vafdr n'kkZ;k x;k gS fdUrq lsy lfVZfQdsV dk iathdj.k rFkk lsy lfVZfQdsV ds vk/kkj ij fodz; i= rFkk mldk iathdj.k dk lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gSA lsy lfVZfQdsV ds lR;kiu gsrq vk;qDr ,oa lfpo] jktLo ifj"kn m0iz0 y[kuÅ dks dk;kZy; ds i= fnukWd 16&3&2011 dks i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k fdUrq lR;kiu ugha gks ldk jktLo ifj"kn ds i= fnukWd 16&6&2011 ds }kjk vfHkys[k tuin cqyUn'kgj Hksts tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;kA izHkkjh vf/kdkjh ¼vfHkys[kkxkj½ dysDVzsV cqyUn'kgj dks i= fnukWd 15&07&11 Hkst dj lR;kiu pkgk x;k fdUrq lR;kiu ugha gqvkA lsy lfVZfQdsV ds iathdj.k ds lEcU/k esa lgk;d egkfufj{kd@fucU/kd cqyUn'kgj ls lR;kiu pkgk x;k] egk fujh{kd fucU/kd us vius i= la0 308@ fnukWd 13&7&11 ds lkFk mi fucU/kd cqyUn'kgj dh vk[;k fnukWd 3&7&11 dh izfr layXu dh xbZ ftlesa mYys[k fd;k x;k fd xzke dkluk esa 31&12&76 ls o"kZ 1981 rd dh vof/k esa xzke dkluk ds lUnfHkZr lsy lfVZfQdsV ds ckjs esa dksbZ izfof"V ntZ ugha ik;h xbZA mDr vk[;k ls Li"V gS fd izR;kosnu Jh fnus'k dqekj }kjk izLrqr Nk;k izfr lsy lfVZfQdsV fnukWd 31&12&76 dk iathdj.k mifucU/kd ds ;gkW ugha gqvk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa lsy lfVZfQdsV lafnX/k gSA fu"dzkUr lEifRr dk fodz; dLVksfM;u vFkok eSusftax vQlj }kjk iathd`r cSukek ds vk/kkj ij gh fd;k tk ldrk gS ftldk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA izR;kosnd }kjk izLrqr rglhynkj] fldUnzkckn ds vkns'k fnukWd 12&10&87 esa Hkh fodz; i= rFkk mldh jftLVzh gksuk ugha ik;k x;k Fkk fQj Hkh dsoy HkwriwoZ dSf'k;u dLVksfM;u ds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij bUnzkt vkfn dk uke ntZ dj fn;k x;k gSA ftuls izR;kosnd }kjk 1992 esa cSukek djk fy;k x;k vkSj cSukek ds vk/kkj ij orZeku [krkSuh esa uke ntZ gks x;kA fu"dzkUr lEifRr dk fodz; lkoZtfud uhyke }kjk gh gks ldrk gSA uhyke ds mijkUr lsy lfVZfQdsV rFkk fodz; i= ds vk/kkj ij ukekUrj.k fd;k tk ldrk Fkk rks rglhynkj }kjk ugh fd;k x;k FkkA fu"dzkUr lEifRr ds lEcU/k esa ,MfefuLVzs'ku vkWQ ,osU;w izkiVhZ ,DV&1950 ¼fu"dzkUr lEifRr vf/kfu;e 1950½ ds izko/kkuksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k ftldh /kkjk&17] 40] 41 mYys[kuh; gSA /kkjk&17 ds vuqlkj fu"dzkfUr lEifRr ds fo"k; esa fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk ldrh gSA /kkjk&40 ds vuqlkj 14&08&1947 ls ebZ 1954 ds chp LFkkfir o ?kksf"kr fu"dzkfUr lEifRr ds lEcU/k esa vukf/kd`r gLrkUrj.k fof/kekU; ugha gksxsaA /kkjk&41 ds vUrxZr fu"dzkUr lEifRr ds lEcU/k esa vU; izdkj ds gLrkj.k 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s x;s gSA /kkjk&41 bl izdkj gS%& Transactions relatins to evacuee property, void in certain circumstances : - Subject to the other provision contained in this Act, every transaction entered into by any person in respect of property declared or deemed to be declared to be evacuee property with in the meaning of this Act, shall be void unless entered in to by or with the previous approval of the custodian bl izdkj izR;kosndx.k }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[kksa fu"dzkUr lEifRr dk uhyke ,oa fodz; dLVksfM;u fu"dzkUr lEifRr }kjk fd;k tkuk lkfcr ugh gksrk gSA mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd izR;kosnd ds }kjk cSukek vukf/kd`r O;fDr;ksa ls djk;k x;k gS] ftudks fu"dzkUr lEifRr xkVk la0 1455 jdck 1-052 gs0 fof/kd : i ls oS/k gLrkUrj.k foys[k }kjk izkIr ugha gqbZ FkhA izR;kosnd dks fu"dzkUr lEifRr ds oS/k gLrkUrj.k ds vfHkys[k izLrqr djus dk Ik;kZIr volj fn;k x;k fdUrq muds }kjk okafNr vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;s x;sA ,d ek= Nk;k izfr lsy lfVZfQdsV fnukWd 31&12&1976 izLrqr fd;k x;k ftldk iathdj.k fucU/kd] fldUnzkckn] tuin cqyUn'kgj ds vfHkys[kksa esa gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA vr% blds vk/kkj ij fu"dzkUr lEifRr esa fdlh dks LoRo izkIr ugh gks ldrk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa iz'uxr Hkwfe fu"dzkUr lEifRr gS ftldk izfrdj izR;kosnd dks fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/kkfud ugha gSA vr% mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij izR;kosnu Jh fnus'k dqekj fnukWd 04&05&2011 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA fuLrkj.k vkns'k dh izfr izR;kosnd dks rFkk ,d izfr ek0 jftLVzkj] ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn vkns'k fnukWd 30&03&2011 ds vuqikyu esa Hksth tkosA g0 vLi"V 6&6&2011 ¼gjuke flag½ vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼Hkw0v0½ uks,Mk] xkSrecq) uxjA lR; izfrfyfi" 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have purchased the land from Rewati Prasad in the year 1992, who has purchased the land in auction in the year 1976. The Additional District Magistrate has asked the petitioners to produce the copy of the sale certificate issued in favour of Rewati Prasad. The petitioners were also required documents relating to registration of the said sale certificate. The petitioners failed to produce such documents. The Additional District Magistrate also recorded the finding that a letter has been written to the office of Sub Registrar, Bulandshahar seeking information about the registration of the said sale certificate. The sub Registrar, Bulandshahar vide letter dated 3.7.2011 informed that up to the year 1981 there is no entry in their record about such sale certificate. In absence of any document being produce by the petitioner relating to registration of sale certificate dated 31.12.1976 and the report of the Sub Registrar, the The Additional District Magistrate has concluded that the said sale certificate is doubtful. In the absence of any document, which was required to the produced by the petitioners to substantiate the claim of his ownership over the land in dispute, by the impugned order the representation claiming the compensation has been rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that their names are duly recorded in the revenue record. When the revenue officer intended to make correction in the revenue record under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 17274 of 2004. 6. The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers from the person who had purchased the plots in the auction held by the custodian of the evacuee property. The names of such purchasers (petitioners) from the revenue records cannot be deleted. He further submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge has attained finality and in view of the said decision the title of the petitioners stands established and the petitioners are not required to give the evidence relating to the validity of the sale certificate and the purchase of the land by the auction purchaser and the registration of the sale certificate issued in favour of the Indraraj Singh and others from whom the petitioners had purchased the land. 7. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court for the release of the compensation by way of filing Writ Petition No. 51957 of 2010 wherein it was noticed that for the release of compensation the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Gorakhpur has asked the certain documents for verification of the title including the details of the registration of the sale certificate in the concerned office of the Sub-Registrar. The demand of such various documents including the details of the registration of the sale certificate by the concerned office has been upheld by this Court and on the under taking being given by the petitioners to produce the relevant documents to the satisfaction of the Additional District Magistrate, the matter has been relegated to the Additional District Magistrate, therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the order of the Additional District Magistrate asking the petitioners to produce the various documents for the purposes of verification of the title for the payment of compensation. We have also perused the order dated 5.1.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17274 of 2004 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) which have been heavily relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners. In the order, the validity of the auction and the purchase of the land by the auction purchasers was not subject matter of adjudication and the Court has not examined the validity of the auction and the title passed on to the auction purchasers; the court has not gone into that whether the said sale certificate was registered or not. Mere entry in the revenue record does not establish the legal title. The legal title can be established only from the documents of title. In case, if the petitioners fail to produce the documents relating to auction purchase by Indraraj Singh and others and the requirement of sale certificate, the title of Indraraj Singh and others could not be established and accordingly, the purchase of land by the petitioners from Indraraj Singh and others cannot be said to be valid transaction. In this view of the matter the petitioners fail to establish their ownership over the land in dispute for which compensation is being demanded. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any error, which requires interference. In this view of the matter the petitioners fail to establish their ownership over the land in dispute for which compensation is being demanded. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any error, which requires interference. The petition has no merit and it is accordingly, dismissed.