Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3859 (ALL)

Gyan Shree v. Collector/D. M.

2016-11-30

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner has, by means of this writ petition, sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.04.2016 passed by the Tehsildar Sadar Mainpuri. Further, a writ of mandamus has also been prayed for, directing the respondents to incorporate an injunction order passed by the Civil Court, in the revenue records. 3. The facts of the case are that the land in question being plot no.116K area 0.02 acre, recorded as Banjar and plot no. 1616 Kha area 1.03 acres, recorded as Usar, situated in village Mainpuri Dehat, Tehsil Sadar, District Mainpuri was allotted to one Sri Krishna son of Kallu, on 20.02.1976. 4. In the Khatauni of 1378 fasli, the area of plot no.1616 was enhanced by 0.07 acre and a new khata was carved out in the name of Balak Ram son of Sobran Singh, fraudulently. This fraudulent khata was sold to the petitioner. 5. On coming to know of the fraudulent entry, the case No.66/1991, under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was registered and therein vide order dated 04.02.1991, the farzi entry was ordered to be expunged. This order was duly incorporated in the revenue records. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision, under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. A recommendation was made to the Board of Revenue to allow the revision. The Board of Revenue refused to accept the recommendation and by its order dated 21.03.2002, rejected the same. 7. The petitioners thereafter filed a review application which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 19.11.2003. 8. The petitioners thereafter filed a suit for injunction before the Civil Court and therein an ex parte injunction was granted in their favour. 9. The petitioners seek amaldaramad of this ex parte interim order granted in their favour by the Civil Court in the revenue records. A representation made in this regard has been dismissed by the Tehsildar by the order impugned dated 02.04.2016. Hence, this writ petition, seeking quashing of the order passed by the Tehsildar, rejecting the representation filed by the petitioners as also a mandamus commanding the revenue authorities to incorporate the injunction order granted by the Civil Court in the revenue records. 10. Hence, this writ petition, seeking quashing of the order passed by the Tehsildar, rejecting the representation filed by the petitioners as also a mandamus commanding the revenue authorities to incorporate the injunction order granted by the Civil Court in the revenue records. 10. In view of the facts noticed above, learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to satisfy this Court that an amaldaramad of an interim order granted by the Civil Court is liable to be incorporated in the revenue records. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed written arguments. The first submission contained in the written argument is that the land in question is abadi land, as its houses duly sanctioned Petrol and diesel pumps. It is, therefore, contended that the civil suit was clearly maintainable. 12. The next submission made is that the petitioner had earlier came up before this Court by means of the writ Petition No.66790 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 21.12.2015 directed the Tehsildar to consider the claim of the petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order, passed by the Tehsildar is in the teeth of the directions issued by the writ Court. 13. On the question as to whether an interim order granted by the Civil Court is liable to be incorporated in the revenue records, reliance has been placed upon Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act, as also para A-8 121(6), 121(7), 151, 154 and 155 of the Land Records Manual. 14. It has also been contended that no parawana amaldaramad is required to be issued for amaldaramad of orders passed by the Civil Court. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the record. 16. The contention that the impugned order has been passed in the teeth of the directions, issued by the writ Court, is being considered first. A relevant portion of the order, passed by the Writ Court, reads as follows - "On the basis of an interim order granted in Suit No.592/2002, i.e. suit for declaration, the petitioners applied for mutation in which the orders are not being passed only on account of the fact that the interim injunction is only of 2002 and the application has been moved for the first time in the year 2015. In my view, merely by moving an application with certain delay cannot be a ground for not considering the application of the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.3 to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law." 17. However, it emerges from the record that the suit No.592 of 2002, is not a suit for declaration. It is a suit filed before the Civil Court, for injunction. The writ Court, while passing the order, aforesaid was under the impression that mutation was being sought by the petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner is not for mutation but for amaldaramad of an interim order of the Civil Court in the revenue records. 18. It is, therefore, clear that the order of the Writ Court had been passed on a misconception of facts. The order passed by the Tehsildar thereafter, cannot be said to be an order passed in the teeth of the directions issued by the writ Court. 19. Besides, the High Court merely required the Tehsildar to consider the claim of the petitioner. The claim has been considered and rejected. 20. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Tehsildar is in the teeth of the directions, issued by the writ Court. This contention is completely devoid of substance. 21. The second interesting aspect which emerges from the facts noticed above and the submissions made in the written argument is that the petitioner claims that the land regarding which amaldaramad is to be made in the revenue records is abadi land and therefore a civil suit has been filed by him. 22. In case, the land in question is abadi land, there is no question of revenue records being maintained as regards this land and for this reason also, the relief claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted and the same has been rightly refused by the Tehsildar. 23. However, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties is required to be decided by the revenue Court because the land is still agricultural land as no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been granted in respect of this land. 24. 23. However, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties is required to be decided by the revenue Court because the land is still agricultural land as no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been granted in respect of this land. 24. I have also carefully perused the various provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as also the Land Records Manual relied upon and I do not find anything in these provisions, for making amaladaramad of an order passed by the Civil Court, especially an interim injunction. This Court is therefore, constrained to hold that there exists no provision of law, wherein an interim injunction granted by the Civil Court can be incorporated in the revenue records. 25. When orders are passed by the revenue Courts in judicial proceedings and some incorporation is required in the revenue records, the court concerned is invariably required to issue a parawana amaldaramad. It is only thereafter that the order passed is incorporated in the revenue records. It is therefore, mandatory for a Court to issue a parawana amaladaramad before its order can be incorporated in the revenue records. It, therefore, necessarily follows that it is only the revenue Courts which can direct for amaldaramad of their orders in the revenue records. 26. It is also clear that a revenue entry was expunged in proceedings for correction of papers, under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Such orders are subject to orders passed by the courts in regular title proceedings, in view of Section 40-A of the said Act. Title to agricultural land is to be determined and a declaration in this regard can be granted only by the Revenue Courts. The Civil Court is not competent to grant declaration regarding agricultural land. 27. It is also well settled law that agricultural land ceases to be so only upon a declaration, under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act having been granted in its regard. 28. The petitioner may have filed a Civil Suit, but the same, in my considered opinion, is not the proper remedy and for this reason also any interim order granted in such a suit is not required to be incorporated in the revenue records. 29. There is yet another reason why this should not be done. 28. The petitioner may have filed a Civil Suit, but the same, in my considered opinion, is not the proper remedy and for this reason also any interim order granted in such a suit is not required to be incorporated in the revenue records. 29. There is yet another reason why this should not be done. A suit for injunction can always be filed on the basis of mere possessory title or possession. It is well settled that an unauthorized occupant, can sue to protect his un-authorised possession, from the entire world, except the true owner. 30. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. I am also constraint to hold that there exists no provision of law, where under, amaldaramad of an order passed by the Civil Court, can be made in the revenue regards. 31. The writ petition therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.