Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 607 (ALL)

Ramesh Chandra v. State of U. P.

2020-02-25

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.9.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in Revision No. 00019/2017 (Rajendra Prasad and others v. Suryalal and others) filed under section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act by the petitioner against the order dated 30.11.2007 by which he has rejected the revision and also the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Additional Collector/ADM (Finance and Revenue), Bahraich under section 115P of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 3. It is the case of the petitioner as argued by his Counsel that one Girvar had kept a thatch-hut on a part of his agricultural holding. He kept his animals on the said part. During consolidation operations in the village, the land covered by the thatch-hut was separated from the agricultural land of Girvar, but no action was taken thereafter to take possession of the said land by the authorities and Girvar remained in possession. Girvar died issueless and the father of the petitioner and his brother succeeded to the properties of Girvar. The father of the petitioner and his brother also died and the petitioner and his brother succeeded to the properties of Girvar. They became owners in possession of the thatch-roof/charni etc. In 1973, one Surya Lal son of Laxman started to disturb the possession of the said Girvar over the property in dispute and in a proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C., the SDM, Bahraich found Girvar to be in possession of the property in question and on 24.9.1973, the SDM appointed a Receiver of the property. The said matter remained pending thereafter. Later on, it was released in favour of Girvar on 16.11.1977 and the Court concerned directed Surya Lal not to make any interference in the possession of Girvar. A criminal revision was filed which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 18.12.1978. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the orders passed in criminal proceedings establish that the predecessor in interest had possession over the property in question. Surya Lal, the challenger and predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. A criminal revision was filed which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 18.12.1978. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the orders passed in criminal proceedings establish that the predecessor in interest had possession over the property in question. Surya Lal, the challenger and predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 did not get any order from any competent Court during the life time of predecessor in interest of the petitioner and the predecessor in interest of the petitioner continued to be in possession of the property. In the year 1994, the said Surya Lal and his brother now respondent No. 8 started claiming that he had patta in respect of the property in dispute for construction of residential house from the competent authority. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner filed an application before the Collector, Bahraich for cancellation of the alleged patta. During the course of proceedings, an enquiry was conducted in which, it came out that the land belonged to Gaon Sabha and was recorded as Navin Parti during consolidation operations. The Trial Court thereafter passed the order dated 30.11.2007 saying that the land in question though may have been in the occupation of the petitioner's predecessor in interest had been rightly allotted to the said Surya Lal by means of a patta. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2007, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, respondent No. 2 which has been rejected on 19.9.2019. 5. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court as well as the revisional Court did not give any finding with regard to whether the land in question was a vacant land before it was given in allotment to the said Surya Lal. They could not have given any such finding also because in the criminal proceedings started under section 145 of Cr.P.C., it had been found by the SDM, Bahraich that the land in question was in occupation of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner. It has been submitted that only vacant land could have been allotted by way of patta. 6. This Court has perused the orders impugned. It finds a detailed consideration in the order of the ADM (Finance and Revenue), Bahraich with regard to the land being recorded as Navin Parti during consolidation operations. 7. It has been submitted that only vacant land could have been allotted by way of patta. 6. This Court has perused the orders impugned. It finds a detailed consideration in the order of the ADM (Finance and Revenue), Bahraich with regard to the land being recorded as Navin Parti during consolidation operations. 7. Any encroachment made by the predecessor in interest over the vacant land of the Gaon Sabha would not give them any right to claim adverse possession over the Gaon Sabha land. They cannot claim that because they had encroached upon the land which was earlier lying vacant, it cannot now be considered as vacant and eligible for being considered for grant of patta to other persons. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner did not object when the land was recorded as Navin Parti and Gaon Sabha land during consolidation operations. The bar under section 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and section 49 would operate now against the petitioner. 8. This Court also finds that the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 19.9.2019 Had mentioned that a spot inspection was done by the learned Trial Court and concurrent finding of fact was recorded. 9. This Court finds no good ground to show interference in writ jurisdiction in such matters. 10. The writ petition stands dismissed.