Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 861 (UTT)

Guru Prasad v. Collector, Collectorate, Dehradun

2016-11-21

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to conduct an inquiry under the Section 35 of the Land Revenue Act 1901, for alleged recording of name of respondent no. 3 in Revenue Records over property in dispute by filing wrong affidavit violating the provisions of 157-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and to take necessary action at the earliest; and/or ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate legal action on the representation dated 24.03.2016 filed by the petitioner within time bound period.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. The agricultural land in question, bearing Khasra No. 12/2 area 0.97 acres, situated within Mauza Harbhajwala, Pargana Central Doon, Tehsil Dehradun was mortgaged to the U.P. State Land Development Cooperative Bank Ltd. for taking loan by late Harsi, who is the father of the petitioner. On 30.07.1985, the said Bank auctioned the said property for Rs. 9,400/- in favour of respondent no. 3 and executed a sale certificate in his favour on 01.01.1987. The petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 150 of 1987 before the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun for declaring the sale certificate dated 01.01.1987 as null and void. On 05.02.2005, the Ist Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun dismissed the said suit. Against the order dated 05.02.2005, petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 127 of 2012 before this Court. On 07.05.2013, the said Second Appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner objected to the mutation proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 3, bearing case no. 1666 of 2009, before the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Dehradun under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901. Vide order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the Tehsildar, Dehradun, the mutation was allowed to remain in favour of the respondent no. 3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner challenged the order dated 18.04.2013 before the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Pauri, by way of filing Revision Petition No. 03/2012-13, which too was dismissed on 05.02.2014. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that the respondent no. Vide order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the Tehsildar, Dehradun, the mutation was allowed to remain in favour of the respondent no. 3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner challenged the order dated 18.04.2013 before the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Pauri, by way of filing Revision Petition No. 03/2012-13, which too was dismissed on 05.02.2014. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that the respondent no. 3 has filed a false affidavit before the Tehsildar, Dehradun in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, stating therein that the property was beyond the purview of Section 157-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the transferor does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category. The said affidavit is duly signed by the respondent no. 3, executed and notarized by him before the Oath Commissioner on 10.09.2009. The petitioner preferred complaint bearing no. 1840 of 2015 before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, seeking summoning and trial of respondent no. 3 for the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 11.02.2016, the A.C.J.M.–II, Dehradun summoned the respondent no. 3 for his trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 appeared before the said Magistrate and obtained bail. Thereafter, on 24.03.2016, the petitioner filed a representation under Section 35 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Tehsildar, Dehradun, seeking inquiry in the matter. The said representation has not been decided by the Tehsildar, Dehradun so far. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the actual owner of the property in question and the respondent no. 3 has purchased the land in question from the Recovery Manager of the U.P. State Land Development Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dehradun, which is apparently illegal. Another contention is that the land in question belongs to the Scheduled Caste, inasmuch as, the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste and, in view of Section 157-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the said land could not be transferred in favour of respondent no. 3 without prior permission of the Collector. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 3 without prior permission of the Collector. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the actual owner of the property in question and the land has been transferred in favour of respondent no. 3 illegally is concerned, it will be open for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for the cancellation of that sale deed. Another issue, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the land in question belongs to the Scheduled Caste and the said land could not be transferred without prior permission of the Collector, the petitioner has already approached the District Magistrate, Dehradun. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the District Magistrate, Dehradun will get the matter inquired and will pass the appropriate orders in the matter. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is closed.