Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 525 (ALL)

Ripunjay Rai v. State Of U. P.

2023-02-22

SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri Vijay Bhan Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. The present petition has been instituted for challenging the orders dated 29.07.2017 and 10.02.2021 passed by the respondent nos.3 and 2 respectively during the proceedings initiated under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 3. The motion has been initiated over the complaint as preferred by the respondent no.5 for seeking expungement of the name of the petitioner from the revenue records on the basis of record of rights wherein the pond has been mentioned against old Plot No.293, situated at Village Banahra, Pargana Sikandarpur, District Ballia and after receiving the report dated 20.05.2014 from the concerned Revenue Inspector along with legal opinion of the District Government Counsel (Revenue), notices have been issued to the petitioner for calling his objection/reply for substantiating his rights over the Plot No.293 which has been subsequently numbered as Plot No.117 situated in the same village. In response to the call of the respondent no.3, a detailed objection was preferred by the petitioner on dated 10.09.2014, wherein specific stand taken up that the Plot No.116-117 has recorded in 1356, 1359, 1360 F against the name of predecessors of the petitioners and now he is well occupant of the same and extract of the records of right have been appended along with the petition as Annexure-1. 4. It is the specific stand taken by the petitioner that the old Plot No.293 which has been converted and given a new number i.e. Plot No.117 is not solely entered in the revenue record against pond, whereas there are several other co-sharers who are having their legal possession over the same under the capacity of the entries available in the revenue records for a long time. 5. The stand taken up by the petitioner before the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 is somehow co-relates with the report submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector on dated 20.05.2014. 5. The stand taken up by the petitioner before the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 is somehow co-relates with the report submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector on dated 20.05.2014. The extract of the report is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^---ekStk cMgjk ij0 fl0iwohZ rg0 fldUnjiqj ds xkVk la0 117 o 116 dk vfHkys[kh; o LFkyh; tkWp fd;kA xkVk la0 117 feutqfeyk uEcj gS rFkk mlds vafdr [kkrsnkjku ladze.kh; Hkwfe gSA xkVk la0 117 dk nkSjku pdcUnh jdck ds vuqlkj foHkktu fd;k x;k gS& [kkrk la0&130 esa 117 d@0&07fM0 o [kkrk la0 49 esa 117[k@0&11fM0 [kkrk la0 14 esa 117x@0&14 fM0 [kkrk la0 177 esa 117/k@0&32 fM0 o [kkrk la0 203 esa 117M@0-39fM0 vuqlkj [ksr pdcUnh vkdkj i= 41] 45 esa foHkkftr fd;k x;k gSA-------^^ 6. The abovementioned findings which have been reported by the concerned Revenue Inspector with regard to Plot No.117 is concerned, the same has been mentioned in Akaar Patra 41 and 45 during the consolidation carried out in the same village. The same has been placed before the respondent no.3 while filing his detailed objection with regard to substantiating his rights over the Plot No.117. It is apparent from the record that while adjudicating the Case No.227 of 2015, under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 although the basis of the order dated 29.07.2017 has been given on the report dated 20.05.2014 submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector but there is hardly any discussion available in the order with regard to fragmentation of the Khata No.203 wherein the Plot No.117 has been divided into several parts and specific 117 M+ measuring 0.39 decimal has been mentioned against pond in the complete Plot No.117 which is crystal clear from Akaar Patra 45 appended along with the petition as Annexure-11 and as such, the non availability of the discussion of the fragmentation of Plot No.117 which is reported by the concerned Revenue Inspector also, the order dated 29.07.2017 is lacking on merits and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. Having aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2017, the petitioner preferred a revision bearing Computerized Case No.C20171500666 (Ripunjay Rai Vs. Chandeshwar Rai) under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 7. Having aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2017, the petitioner preferred a revision bearing Computerized Case No.C20171500666 (Ripunjay Rai Vs. Chandeshwar Rai) under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. While deciding the same as preferred by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 vide order dated 10.02.2021 determined that the Plot No.117 is solely recorded against pond which is contrary to the revenue record as well as report submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector during the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent no.5 supported the orders dated 29.07.2017 and 10.02.2021 passed by the respondent nos.3 and 2 respectively, with regard to submission of the petitioner which has been substantiated by the revenue record as well as the report submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector, the same has been admitted to the extent with regard to the report submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector but denying the stand of the petitioner that the Plot No.117 is having co-sharers and which has been fragmented during the proceedings of consolidation. 9. The stand of learned counsel for the respondent no.5 is not sustainable since the report as submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector during the pendency of the Case No.227 of 2015, under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 itself reveals that the Plot No.117 which is recorded as pond along with some other sharers under the capacity of bhumidar with transferable rights. The report is perfectly matched with the Akaar Patra 45 as appended to the petition and the same has been submitted before the respondent no.3 while filing the objection preferred by the petitioner. 10. It was justified action which ought to be initiated by the respondent no.3 while adjudicating the controversy under Section 33/39 by way of dealing the detailed discussion and observations over the report submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector as well as by giving thoughtful consideration over the previous proceedings which have been initiated over the Plot No.117 and the same is lacking in the present order which impugned the instant petition i.e. order dated 29.07.2017. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Public School Vs. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Public School Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ C No.14880 of 2015, decided on 02.08.2019) wherein the impugned order was quashed on the ground of non consideration of material placed before the Authority. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “As I have already discussed hereinabove, in my considered opinion, the principal order passed by the Tehsildar under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950 cannot pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution whereunder whatever is arbitrary is bad and in matters where element of adjudication is involved, it clearly requires not only due application of mind to the objections filed by the person aggrieved but also proper adjudication of issues, the evaluation of the pleadings raised and appreciation of material placed before the Authority. Fair play requires recording precise and cogent reasons when an order affects right of a citizen [Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Jit Singh (2009) 13 SCC 118 ]. All this is quite wanting in the order impugned and, therefore, the order dated 13th June, 2012 deserves to be set aside.” 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and arguments raised by learned counsel for parties, the orders dated 29.07.2017 and 10.02.2021 passed by the respondent nos.3 and 2 respectively are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.3 for deciding afresh by way of giving proper findings while adjudicating the same with regard to Plot No.117 which has been reported by the concerned Revenue Inspector as different numbers as 117d] 117[k] 117x] 177/k] 117M . A fine consideration to the earlier proceedings which have been initiated during the proceedings of consolidation, may also be given consideration at the time of final adjudication of the proceedings initiated in Case No.227 of 2015. 12. In view thereof, the petition stands allowed.