Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1558 (ALL)

Mohd. Hanif v. State of U. P.

2019-07-01

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Varma, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 23rd July, 2018, passed by respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Dhaulana, Hapur, by which the petitioners have been denied the right to be declared bhumidhars with transferable rights. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were granted bhumidhari pattas vis-a-vis Khasra No.904, 939, 1002, 1003, 1026, 1003 and Khasra No. 1527, 1527M, 1519 and 1849M situate in Village-Dehra, Tehsil-Dhaulana District-Hapur.Thereafter, the land in question was acquired and the acquisition was challenged by means of Writ Petition No.55578 of 2008. Upon the writ petition being allowed, the petitioners prayed that since there was no proceeding pending for acquiring the plots of land in question, possession of the plots be delivered to the petitioners and their names be entered. However, the application was rejected by the Collector on 6.2.2005 and the Board of Revenue on 6.8.2012 also rejected the revision of the petitioners. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the orders dated 6.2.2005 and 6.8.2012 filed Writ Petition No.62704 of 2012, which was allowed vide order dated 30.4.2014. The operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as under: "In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Collector dated 6.2.2005 and Board of Revenue dated 6.8.2012 are set aside. The SDO is directed to ensure delivery of possession to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him." 3. Thereafter, the petitioners entered possession over the plots in question and since the pattas were of the year 1997 and five years had elapsed since their grant, the petitioners applied for being declared bhumidhars with transferable rights. The application of the petitioners was rejected by the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2018. In effect, the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was to the effect that since the petitioners came into possession since 16th March, 2015, the question of granting to them the status of bhumidhari with transferable rights before 15.3.2020 would not arise. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had continued to be bhumidhars ever-since the bhumidhari pattas were granted to them. He submits that if certain acquisition proceedings intervened and if the petitioners were out of possession, then they could not be deprived of their statutory rights. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had continued to be bhumidhars ever-since the bhumidhari pattas were granted to them. He submits that if certain acquisition proceedings intervened and if the petitioners were out of possession, then they could not be deprived of their statutory rights. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the intention of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 was that the petitioners had to be in possession, after the grant of the bhumidhari patta and since they came to be entered in the Revenue Records with effect from 2015, they had to wait for the next five years. Rights would, therefore, mature in 2020 only. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State-respondents, I am of the view that the petitioners were granted the bhumidhari pattas with non-transferable rights in the year 1997 and ever-since then they shall be considered bhumidhars with nontransferable rights. It matters little that they were entered in the Revenue Records only after 16.3.2015. They were entitled to be in possession ever-since they were granted the status of bhumidhari with non transferable rights. They could not be deprived of their statutory rights for such happenings, which were not within their control. The setting aside the intervening acquisition definitely would mean that the petitioners were always in possession. 7. Under the facts and circumstances, the order impugned dated 23.7.2018 is hereby quashed. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 9. The respondents are hereby directed to enter the petitioners in the Revenue Records as bhumidhars with transferable rights within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.