Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3346 (ALL)

Shabbir v. Addl. Commissioner Meerut

2016-09-29

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mahesh Narain Singh who has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha as also learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgement and order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Meerut and the order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, whereby the order passed by the ADM has been affirmed in revision. 3. The allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the land allotted to him was recorded as Nadi in the revenue records and in the CH Form 45. It was land covered by Section 132 of the Act, which could not have been subject matter of an allotment. Accordingly, the allotment was cancelled and the land was ordered to be recorded as Nadi. The revisional Court has reiterated the findings and accordingly, dismissed the revision. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court was that the land is recorded as Banjar and the finding returned in the impugned order is incorrect. 5. In view of the submission made, this Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 directed counsel for the petitioner to file the Khasra and Khatauni of the plot in question, evidencing the revenue entry, as regards this plot, on the date of allotment. 6. This matter was again taken up on 17.09.2016, when a supplementary affidavit was filed. However counsel for the petitioner stated that since he was running fever, he was not in a position to made his submissions. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner was directed to furnish written arguments within a period of one week. 7. The written arguments have been filed and I have examined the record as also the supplementary affidavit filed on 17.09.2016. 8. Although, counsel for the petitioner had been directed to file the Khasra and Khatauni of the plot in question evidencing the revenue entries on the date of allotment, but no such document has been filed. Along with the supplementary affidavit, the Khatauni of 1393 and 1398 fasli of Village Baparasi, Pargana Tehsil - Sardhana, District Meerut has been filed. 8. Although, counsel for the petitioner had been directed to file the Khasra and Khatauni of the plot in question evidencing the revenue entries on the date of allotment, but no such document has been filed. Along with the supplementary affidavit, the Khatauni of 1393 and 1398 fasli of Village Baparasi, Pargana Tehsil - Sardhana, District Meerut has been filed. The other document filed is a report, which is to the effect that the file of case no. 40 under Rule 109A decided by the Consolidation Officer, Meerut has been weeded out. 9. Although, in the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit is the copy of field book, however, its perusal reveals that it is in fact the Khatauni of Khata No. 465 consisting of plots recorded as Naveen Parti. This Khatauni consists of 21 plots but plot no. 23Ka, which is the subject matter of this writ petition is not one of these 21 plots, recorded as Naveen Parti. This document therefore, does not establish that the land, which was allotted to the petitioner was recorded as Naveen Parti. There is no other evidence in support of this contention available on record. 10. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to hold that the petitioner has not been able to establish that plot No. 23Ka, which was allotted to him was recorded as Banjar on the date of allotment. Therefore, there is no other option but to accept the findings returned in the impugned orders that plot no. 23Ka was recorded as Nadi. 11. The written arguments that have been furnished are to the effect that plot No. 23Ka had been recorded in the name of the petitioner in same proceedings under Rule 109A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. 12. This submission in this regard, as contained in the written arguments, is being extracted below: - "That, since the names of the petitioners incorporated in revenue records by way of some proceedings during consolidation operation in village concerned but the file of the case has consigned on 20.06.2003, the report of the concerned authority has annexed with the supplementary affidavit i.e. page no. 8 of the supplementary affidavit." 13. 8 of the supplementary affidavit." 13. The petitioners therefore as per their own admission have been recorded over plot No. 23Ka by same order of the consolidation authority in proceedings under Rule 109A, which proceedings are in the nature of execution proceedings, for implementing orders passed during consolidation operations. The order in pursuance whereof the proceedings under Rule 109A were drawn has not been disclosed in the written arguments. Neither any reference of the same is to be found on record. 14. However, what clearly emerges is that if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, plot no. 23A was not recorded in their name since the same had been allotted to them in consolidation operations. This is an altogether new plea, not raised earlier at any stage. 15. The finding returned in the impugned order that plot No. 23A is recorded in CH Form 41 and 45 as Nadi, has not been controverted by any cogent evidence. 16. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have not been able to establish their case and therefore, the impugned orders warrant no interference. 17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.