Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1791 (ALL)

Roshan Lal v. D. D. C.

2016-05-10

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the revision of the petitioners has been rejected. 3. The petitioners are claiming right over the property in question on the basis of possession over the same for a long period of time and have asked for benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of UPZA&LR Act for being declared as bhumidhar during the consolidation proceedings. To show that the petitioners are in possession, they have filed statement of Gram Pradhan that the petitioners are in possession since 1968, although in the statement of Gram Pradhan it has been noted that they have been granted patta. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are claiming benefit of Section 122-B(4F) of the Act on the basis of possession for a long period of time and not on the basis of patta. The matter was taken up before this court in Writ-B No.59004 of 2009 and this Court in paragraph no.10 held as under: "10.So far as Writ B No. 17413 of 2014, is concerned, in the application filed for recall of the order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner by committing fraud obtained signatures of Pradhan on the affidavit and secured order dated 07.08.2008. Although neither any patta was granted to the petitioner and his brother nor they were in possession over the disputed land but in the affidavit of Pradhan their patta and possession have been falsely admitted. The fact that although the patta was granted to the petitioner and his brother on 15.10.1968 but they never applied for mutation of their names in the revenue record for about 40 years, create a serious doubt about the patta and possession of the petitioner and his brother. The recall application filed by District Government Counsel has been rejected by Consolidation Officer due to terror of the contempt petition filed by the petitioner against him. Although in the order dated 07.08.2008 it has been mentioned that Gaon Sabha has not contested the matter but in the order dated 19.05.2010, a contrary finding has been recorded that Gaon Sabha had contested the matter. Although in the order dated 07.08.2008 it has been mentioned that Gaon Sabha has not contested the matter but in the order dated 19.05.2010, a contrary finding has been recorded that Gaon Sabha had contested the matter. These are serious circumstances regarding the manner of obtaining the order from the court of Consolidation Officer. The petitioner, on the one hand got stayed the further proceedings of the recall application and the appeal and at the same time he is making serious effort to get their names mutated in the record. In such circumstance the Consolidation Officer has not committed any illegality in declining to give effect to the order dated 07.08.2008 in the record on the ground that order dated 07.08.2008 was still sub-judice in recall application and in appeal. Writ B No. 17413 of 2014 has also no merit and it was also liable to be dismissed." 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have neither been able to establish that any patta was granted in their favour nor they established their right over the land in question. As such, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as earlier held by this Court in Writ-B No. 59004 of 2009 along with connected Writ- B No. 17413 of 2014. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.