Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1760 (ALL)

Mohd. Siraj v. State of U. P.

2024-07-29

JASPREET SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT : JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 4. 2. The order under challenge is dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration) in proceedings initiated at the behest of the private respondents under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and while dismissing the said proceedings there are certain observations which has drawn the irk of the petitioner prompting him to file a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and the revision has also been dismissed by means of order dated 29.05.2024. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question belonged to the petitioner and has been in the family since the time of his forefathers. It is urged that it is an ancestral property and the name of the grand father of the petitioner was recorded in the Khatauni of 1356 and 1359 fasli years. However, sometime in the decade of 1970, the said land came to be recorded as Banjar and Usar. Upon commencement of consolidation operations the forefather of the petitioner had filed his objections which was upheld thereafter the said entry was corrected and it also was reflected in CH Form 41 and 45 and thereafter it has been with the petitioner without any demur or challenge from any person. It is at the later stage in the year 2013-14 that the private respondents raised an issue regarding the land belonging to a public utility and the lease granted to the petitioner was invalid, accordingly the same be cancelled and in the alternative, the land be leased to the private respondents. 4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has filed his objections contested the proceedings with the preliminary objection that the land in question has never been leased out to the petitioner rather it is a Bhumidhari land which has been in their possession since the time of the forefather and as such the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act 1950 were per se without jurisdiction and cannot proceed. 5. 5. It is noticing that the aforesaid conflicting stand of the respective parties, the Additional Collector (Administration), Lucknow by means of order dated 24.09.2014 dropped the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act 1950. However, it made certain observations regarding the stand and the documents filed by the petitioner and referred the matter to be considered under Section 33/39 of the U.P. L.R. Act 1901 as the Collector found that the entries which was relied upon by the petitioner were suspicious. It is being aggrieved against this portion of the order there are certain observations made that led the petitioner to prefer the revision which needless to say has been dismissed by means of order dated 29.05.2024 and being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 could not be initiated at the behest of the private respondents especially when the land in question was not a lease land. Once the Additional Collector had come to this conclusion that the land was not leased to the petitioner and he decided to drop the proceedings. In this context, it was not open for the Collector to have made any observations in respect of the entries or the documents furnished by the petitioner to refer the matter under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901. 7. It is further submitted that this error which was committed by the Additional Collector has been repeated by the Revisional Authority and in the aforesaid circumstance, the said part of the order deserves to be set aside. 8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record. 9. Prima facie, what this Court finds that the case of the petitioner relating to his title is based on an order passed by the Consolidation Officer, however, the said order was neither produced in the proceedings pending before the Additional Commissioner nor the same has been placed before this Court. Reference of the said order is said to have been mentioned and appears on the Khatuani and on that basis it has also been reflected in CH Form 41 and 45. 10. Reference of the said order is said to have been mentioned and appears on the Khatuani and on that basis it has also been reflected in CH Form 41 and 45. 10. A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner regarding the said order, to which he submits that since they are quite old relating to the year 1970, he does not have any copy. However, he submits that there is a reference of the case which was registered before the Consolidation Officer and thus taking cue therefrom, it is urged that this was sufficient material to have taken note of by the Additional Collector to drop the proceedings. 11. Be that at it may, the Collector is the custodian of revenue records. He can take note of any entry which may come in course of discharge of his duty and in this case it has come to his notice in terms of proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Even though the said proceedings may not have been maintainable as the land was not leased and rightly dropped by the Collector. However, it does not prevent the Collector from referring the matter under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. 12. Needless to say that the Collector while making the observation has taken note of and provided adequate safe guard that any proceedings which may be done would be only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. This has been upheld by the revisional court and this Court is of the opinion that there is no patent illegality in the said direction which may persuade this Court to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, this Court hastens to act that any observations made by the Additional Collector in his order dated 24.04.2014 is per se tentative. Even if at some place, it has been indicated in the order that the aforesaid ‘fraudulent entry’ is only to be construed as referring to the said entry and it cannot be held that any definite opinion has been given regarding the entry to be genuine or fraudulent. This necessarily is to be seen during the proceedings under Section 33/39 where the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to furnish his records and all defence taken by him shall be considered in such proceedings. 13. This necessarily is to be seen during the proceedings under Section 33/39 where the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to furnish his records and all defence taken by him shall be considered in such proceedings. 13. With the aforesaid observations, this Court does not deem appropriate to entertain the petition. Accordingly, it is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.