Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 376 (UTT)

Ranjeet Singh @ Hajura Singh v. Jagminder Singh

2015-07-29

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the application, supplementary affidavit is taken on record. 2. IA No. 3369 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. 3. Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 19.06.2015, passed by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand whereby application moved by the petitioner for correction of the revenue entries under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was rejected. 4. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner has moved one application under Section 33/34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act saying that existing khasra No. 2207 (old number 1078M) was never bequeathed in favour of Jagminder Singh nor his name was directed to be mutated over the land of old khasra No. 1078 M; however, near about 2004, name of Jagminder Singh, respondent, herein was entered over the land of khasra No. 2207 (old No. 1078M), therefore, his name should be deleted from the revenue record over the khasra No. 2207 and name of the petitioner should be recorded in the revenue record over the land of khasra No. 2207; application for correction so moved by the petitioner was allowed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Rishikesh, vide order dated 03.014.2014; order dated 03.04.2014 was assailed by the respondent herein in the Revision No. 89 of 2013-14, under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act; revision so filed by the respondent was allowed vide impugned order dated 19.06.2015; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Undisputedly, land of khasra No. 2207 is now part of khata khatuni No. 301. Undisputedly, petitioner is not a co-bhumidhar of khata khatuni No. 301. Correction of the record under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act can be directed if there is no dispute about the possession and entries are altered without there being any order of competent Authority/Court. Since, petitioner’s khata and respondent’s khata are different and petitioner and respondent are not the co-bhumidhar in Khata No. 301 of which Khasra No. 2207 is a part, therefore, question of possession will play an important role and question of possession cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. It can only be decided under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 6. It can only be decided under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. Proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the Act are summary in nature wherein long standing entry cannot be permitted to be corrected, particularly, when question of possession is also involved. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 7. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 8. Petitioner, if so advised, may file suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or for possession under Section 219 of the Act wherein source of title as well as question of possession shall be decided without being prejudice from any observation made in the impugned order.