Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3440 (ALL)

Chandra Pal v. State of U. P.

2016-10-07

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri A. K. Trivedi for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for State and Sri Anuj Kumar for Gaon Sabha. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub Divisional Officer dated 12.7.2016, Additional Commissioner dated 9.5.2007 and Board of Revenue, UP dated 18.10.2007 passed in the proceeding under Section 229 B of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 229 B of the Act for declaring him as bhumidhar with transferable right of plot no. 190 area 0.254 hectare situated in village Ranipur Bhatt, tehsil Karvi, Distt. Chitrakoot. It has been stated in the plaint that the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute prior to date of vesting. The petitioner has also filed a suit under Section 229 B of the Act which was decreed in favour of the petitioner but as the parvana amaldaramad was not issued as such his name could not be recorded over the land in dispute. When the petitioner took extract of khatauni from Lekhpal on 19.3.2003 then he could know that land in dispute was recorded as 'bhita' . On this allegation suit was filed. The suit was contested by State of UP, who has taken plea that land in dispute was 'bhita' land and there was no cultivation on it and the petitioner had no right over it. The suit was tried by Additional Sub Divisional Officer. Before Additional Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed extract of khatauni 1356 F and 1359 F and a copy of the order dated 26.12.1998 passed in Suit No. 57 filed under Section 229 B of the Act. The petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and Ram Kumar as PW-2 and on behalf of State of UP , Avanish Kumar Srivastava, Revenue Record Keeper was examined, who has also produced original khatauni of 1359 F. The Additional Sub Divisional Officer after hearing the parties by order dated 9.5.2007 found that khatauni produced by the petitioner is a fabricated document inasmuch as in the original khatauni of 1359 F entry of the land in dispute was in different ink and hand writing and was not matched from the ink and hand writing of other plots. Therefore the papers produced by the petitioner has been held to be fabricated papers. Therefore the papers produced by the petitioner has been held to be fabricated papers. So far as the judgment dated 26.12.1998 passed in the Suit No. 57 is concerned, it has been found that the petitioner has not summoned the record of aforesaid suit as such its authenticity could not be proved. On this finding, the suit was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before Commissioner, who by order dated 18.10.2007 affirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a second appeal before Board of Revenue,which has also been dismissed by Board of Revenue by order dated 12.7.2016. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 5. It is admitted that after date of vesting the land in dispute was through out recorded as 'bhita' land. In order to prove the title of the petitioner, the petitioner relied upon extract of khatauni 1356 F and 1359 F. The original khatauni was summoned before the trial court and the Revenue Record Keeper was examined, who has stated that there was fabrication in the original khatauni relating to this plot inasmuch as ink and hand writing of this plot was in different from ink and hand writing of other plots. All the courts below have found that the petitioner has placed reliance on the fabricated document. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is unable to re-appreciate the evidence on record and record a contrary finding. 6. So far as the order of Additional Sub Divisional Officer dated 26.12.1998 is concerned, a perusal of the questionnaire shows that the suit was filed on 24.10.1998 and it was decreed on 26.12.1998 i.e. within two months. Thus its authenticity is doubtful. The petitioner could not summoned the original record to prove its authenticity before the trial court. In such circumstances, no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit it is dismissed.