Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 577 (ALL)

Lal Ji v. Commissioner Varanasi Division

2017-02-17

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3-Gaon Sabha. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the Revenue-Authorities in a proceeding under Rule 115-P of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 4. Challenging the orders impugned, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier a proceeding under Rule 115-P of the Rules was initiated on the application moved by one Priyambada Pandey wife of Ramesh Kumar Pandey which was rejected vide order dated 18.5.2011. The revision filed by Smt. Priyambada Pandey was also rejected on 20.1.2012. Resultantly, the allotment made in favour of the petitioners was upheld. 5. The present proceedings for cancellation of allotment are initiated by Ramesh Kumar Pandey husband of Smt. Priyambada Pandey. There was no justification for proceeding with the matter by the Collector, Chandauli. 6. It is contended that in proceeding in the order dated 18.5.2011, it was found that the record of allotment was missing. The statement of Lekhpal was recorded to prove the allotment and the approval made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In view of the finding of the Revenue-Authorities that there was a valid allotment in favour of the petitioners, there was no occasion to cancel the allotment on the ground that the allotment was forged. 7. Dealing with these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be relevant to note that from a perusal of the order dated 18.5.2011, it is evident that a report was obtained by Collector on 5.11.2008 from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandauli to produce the record of allotment. A direction was also given to produce the record of proceedings i.e. the register of proceedings of the Land Management Committee for allotment, if any. On 19.2.2011, the Sub Divisional Officer wrote a letter to the Collector, Chandauli that no such record was available in the office of Tehsil. The order categorically records that the Sub Divisional Officer reported that there was no record of approval order dated 2.7.1997 in the Tehsil office. 8. Similarly, no such record is available in the office of Land Management Committee, Gram Revsa. 9. The order categorically records that the Sub Divisional Officer reported that there was no record of approval order dated 2.7.1997 in the Tehsil office. 8. Similarly, no such record is available in the office of Land Management Committee, Gram Revsa. 9. Surprisingly enough, despite having this report, the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) Chandauli had proceeded to record the statement of Lekhpal who deposed that the allotment was made in his presence. He has also deposed that the possession memo bore his signature. It is also recorded in the order dated 18.5.2011 that the statement of the then Lekhpal is proved from the letter dated 25.6.2005 submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sakaldiha to the Circle Officer (Sadar) Chandauli, wherein it is stated that from the total area of 78 Decimal of Plot No.838/1098, 23 Decimal were allotted for housing purpose and the remaining 55 decimal of Gram Sabha was left on the spot. However, there is nothing on record to prove that the land in question namely Plot No.838/1098, area 23 decimal was ever allotted in favour of the petitioners or any such allotment proceedings had been undertaken by the Land Management Committee. 10. The statement of Lekhpal or any inference drawn from the letter dated 25.6.2005 written by the Sub Divisional Officer to the Circle Officer, Sadar, Chandauli, in any other proceeding, would be of no relevance so far as the finding recorded by the Revenue Authorities to the availability of record of allotment. 11. The specific report has been sought by the Collector, Chandauli from the Sub Divisional Officer Sakaldihya which was supplied through letter dated 19.2.2011. Earlier, an order dated 18.5.2011 records the averments of the report that no record of allotment was available in the Tehsil office or in the office of Land Management Committee. 12. Moreover, it is also noteworthy that the application moved by Smt. Priyambada Pandey wife of Ramesh Kumar Pandey was rejected on 18.5.2011 on the ground that she did not come within the meaning of "aggrieved person" and the application moved by her for cancellation of allotment under Rule 155-P of the Rules was not maintainable. 13. The above noted facts have been clearly shown in the order passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division Varanasi in report which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 14. 13. The above noted facts have been clearly shown in the order passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division Varanasi in report which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been asked to explain as to how the petitioners prove that the allotment was made in their favour or whether they had produced the original lease deed executed by the Revenue-Authorities. 15. He was not in a position to answer the said queries of the Court. It is also reflected from the record that only certain receipts of payment of money have been produced by the petitioners, however, the original lease deeds were not produced before the Court below. 16. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) Chandauli in the order dated 18.5.2011 that the record was misplaced is based on surmises and conjectures. The said finding would not come in the way of the Revenue-Authorities and, therefore, have rightly been ignored. 17. In the absence of any record of allotment, the Revenue-Authorities are clearly justified in concluding that no allotment has been made in favour of the petitioners and other documents brought on record are forged documents. It is also recorded by the Revenue-Authorities that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in question. 18. For all the above noted reasons, no interference is required in the order impugned. 19. The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.