Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 414 (ALL)

Daya Chand v. State of U. P.

2020-02-06

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No. 74 of 2014 registered under section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1950), the order dated 8.8.2017 passed by the Assistant Collector dismissing the recall application filed by the petitioner in Case No. 74 as well as against the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Gautam Buddh Nagar dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Assistant Collector. 3. The facts of the case are that petitioner was issued notice in the proceedings for having allegedly encroached over Plot Nos. 483 Ba (483 Kha) which was recorded as pond in the revenue records and therefore, vested in the Gaon Sabha. 4. From a perusal of the records available before this Court, which includes the documents annexed with the writ petition, the personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar and the instructions received by the Standing Counsel, it is apparent that during consolidation operations, Plot No. 413 was divided into four parts which were numbered as Plot Nos. 413/1, 413/2, 413/3 & 413/4. Plot No. 483 Ka (area 0.1010 Hectares) was carved out from part of Plot No. 413/1, Plot No. 483 Kha (area 0.0380 Hectares) was carved out from part of Plot No.-413/2, Plot No. 483 Ga (area 1.5430 Hectares) was carved out from the remaining portion of Plot Nos. 413/1 and 413/2. Subsequently, Plot No. 483 Ga was sub-divided into Plot No. 483 Ga and Plot No. 483 Ma. One Hectare was retained in Plot No. 483 Ga and remaining 0.5430 Hectares was numbered as Plot No. 483 Ma. 5. Plot No. 483 Ka was recorded in the name of one Gunned Singh and other sub-parts of Plot No. 483 were recorded either as road, pond or plots reserved for construction of residential houses for revenue employees. 6. Proceedings were registered against the petitioner for his alleged encroachment over Plot No. 483 Kha. 5. Plot No. 483 Ka was recorded in the name of one Gunned Singh and other sub-parts of Plot No. 483 were recorded either as road, pond or plots reserved for construction of residential houses for revenue employees. 6. Proceedings were registered against the petitioner for his alleged encroachment over Plot No. 483 Kha. In the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, the petitioner took the plea that he is in possession of old plot number 413/1 which was recorded in the name of one Gurmed Singh and from which new Plot No. 483 Ka was carved out during the consolidation proceedings. 7. The said fact would be evident from paragraph-8 of the writ petition and the objections filed by the petitioner annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 8. The report of the survey conducted by the revenue authorities on the orders of this Court state that the petitioner is in possession over Plot No. 483 Kha. The survey report submitted before this Court by the Standing Counsel is the result of a survey conducted by the T.S.M. The impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities have also been passed on the basis that the petitioner was found to be in occupation of Plot No. 483 Kha. 9. It is evident from the records available with this Court, especially the consolidation records produced by the Standing Counsel, that Plot No. 483 Kha vested in the Gaon Sabha and the petitioner had no right or title over the same. 10. The findings regarding the possession of the petitioner over Plot No. 483 Kha are based on material available on record. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he was not in occupation of Plot No. 483 Kha but was in occupation over Plot No. 483 Ka. 11. From the tenor of the grounds raised in the appeal, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner before the Appellate Court was that Plot No. 483 Kha was wrongly recorded as pond during the consolidation operation. The legality of the entries in the consolidation records are not subject-matter for consideration in proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 12. The legality of the entries in the consolidation records are not subject-matter for consideration in proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no illegality in the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Gautam Buddh Nagar so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Further, it is apparent that the main dispute raised by the petitioner is that he is in occupation of Plot No. 483 Ka and not in possession of Plot No. 483 Kha and thus the petitioner disputes the findings recorded by the Revenue Authorities regarding the plot over which the petitioner is in possession. The issue raised in the present writ petition and in the proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Revenue Courts relates to disputed question of facts which can only be decided on evidence for which proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may exercise any other remedy available to him in law, if so advised.