Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3492 (ALL)

Jaiveer v. State of U. P.

2016-10-19

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – These three writ petitions involve an identical issue. They have therefore be heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 2. I have learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in each of these petitions as also the counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Writ Petition No.15685 of 2016 seeks a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 21.08.2015, for being declared a bhumidhari with transferable rights in view of Section 131(B) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is not in issue that the land regarding which the petitioner wants to be declared a bhumidhari with transferable rights is land recorded in the revenue records as 'Shor'. 4. Writ Petition No.36659 of 2016 arises out of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. A resolution was passed by the Land Management Committee for allotting land in favour of the petitioner on 17.04.2003. The approval of this resolution was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer on 03.07.2003. 5. Upon proceedings for cancellation of this allotment being initiated, the Collector cancelled the allotment and the consequential revision has been dismissed. 6. The allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the land allotted was recorded as 'Shor', which is the land governed by the provisions of Section 132 of the Act, wherein no rights can accrue, in favour of anyone. This land, therefore, could not have been subject matter of the allotment. 7. Writ Petition No.66146 of 2015 arises out of a suit for declaration, under Section 229-B filed by the petitioner. This suit was filed on the basis of long standing possession and also on account of the plaintiff petitioner belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The benefit of Section 122-B (4F) was the basis of the claim in the suit. 8. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The judgment and decree was set aside by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the decree had been passed relying upon the oral evidence alone. No documentary evidence of possession of the plaintiff from prior to cut of date was adduced. 9. 8. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The judgment and decree was set aside by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the decree had been passed relying upon the oral evidence alone. No documentary evidence of possession of the plaintiff from prior to cut of date was adduced. 9. Moreover, the statement Lekhpal as regards, the possession of the petitioner from prior to the cut of date was found to be hearsay evidence as he had been posted in the circle for only two or three months before the date of his deposition. The consequential revision has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue affirming the findings of the First Appellate Court. It has additionally being observed that the land subject matter of the suit was recorded as 'shor'. 10. From the facts noticed above, it emerges that the land in issue in each of three writ petitions is recorded as 'shor'. The controversy is whether land recorded as 'shor', is land governed by the provisions of Section 132 of the Act. In case, it is land governed by the said provision namely Section 132, no rights can accrue therein in favour of any person. 11. In view of the controversy involved and also in view of the statement made by learned Standing Counsel that the issue as to whether or not, land recorded as 'shor' is land governed by the provisions of Section 132 of the Act is engaging the attention of the Board of Revenue as also other authorities, directions were issued to the State Government to take a specific decision in this regard. 12. In response to the directions issued by this Court, a decision has been taken at the level of the State Government. 13. A letter from the Principal Secretary, State of U.P. has been produced, wherein it has been stated that upon receiving information from the District Collector, Bulandshahar and the Board of Revenue as also the opinion of the legal department, the State is of the opinion that the land recorded as 'shor' is land so recorded under Class 6(4) in accordance with para 124-A of the Land Record Manual and is land governed by Section 132 of the Act. 14. 14. In view of this categorical stand taken by the State and the reasoning given for arriving at this conclusion, which in my considered opinion, suffers from no illegality, this Court is constrained to hold that the petitioners in each of three writ petitions are not entitled to any relief. They are claiming rights over the land recorded as 'shor' which is land governed by Section 132 of the Act, wherein no rights can accrue in favour of any person. 15. Accordingly, all these three writ petitions are found to be devoid of merits. The relief prayed therein is not liable to be granted to the petitioners. 16. Accordingly, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Petition Dismissed.