Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 228 (ALL)

Rustam Singh v. State Of U. P.

2024-01-19

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat. 2.Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B/ 122B (4F) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act (herein after referred as to the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner impleading State and Gram Sabha as defendant in respect to plot No.643 area 0.253 hectare. Trial Court framed issues in the aforementioned suit. The basis of the claim of the suit is that lease deed alleged to be executed in favour of plaintiff and in the proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act the petitioner's lease has been cancelled in arbitrary manner but petitioner remained in possession of the plot No.643. Trial Court considering the evidence adduced by the parties specially the fact that lease alleged to be executed in favour of plaintiff has cancelled in the proceeding under section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, as such plaintiff is not entitled to be recorded as bhumidhari with transferable rights of the plot in question. The trial court decided the suit vide judgment dated 27.12.2010. Against the judgment dated 27.12.2010, a revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act was filed on behalf of plaintiff-petitioner in the year 2019 i.e. after 9 years before the Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 09.12.2022 dismissed the revision on the ground of limitation and further revision filed by petitioner before Board of Revenue has been dismissed as not maintainable, hence this writ petition for the following relief: "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.12.2010,09.12.2022 and order dated20.02.2023 passed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No.1-A, 2 and 3 not to eject in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute since last 27 years in any manner, in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned order." 3. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Mr. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No.1-A, 2 and 3 not to eject in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute since last 27 years in any manner, in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned order." 3. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents submitted that the basis of the suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was lease deed and in the proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act lease of the plaintiff has been cancelled, as such the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 27.12.1990. They further submitted that revision was filed after nine years which was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation. They submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is labile to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that lease executed in favour of petitioner in respect to plot No.-643 area 0.253 hectare has been cancelled in the proceeding under Section -198 (4) of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act. There is also no dispute about the fact that suit under Section -229B/122B(4f) of U.P.Z.A&L.R Act filed by petitioner has been dismissed by trial Court holding that petitioner's lease has already been cancelled as such petitioner can not be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner has filed revision after 9 year from the date of judgment of trial court which has been dismissed on the ground of limitation & further revision before board of revenue has been dismissed being second revision by the same party. 6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the perusal of finding recorded by the trial Court, while dismissing the plaintiff's suit will be relevant which is as under:- 7. The finding of fact as quoted above fully demonstrate that petitioner's lease has been cancelled on 30.12.2008 in the proceeding under section-198(4) of U.P.Z.A&L.R Act which has attained finality as such petitioner's plea for possession can not be accepted. The finding of fact as quoted above fully demonstrate that petitioner's lease has been cancelled on 30.12.2008 in the proceeding under section-198(4) of U.P.Z.A&L.R Act which has attained finality as such petitioner's plea for possession can not be accepted. It is also material that petitioner challenged the judgment of trial Court in appeal after 9 year which is abuse of process of law as such Commissioner rightly dismissed the revision on the ground of limitation. The board of revenue has rightly dismissed the petitioner's revision as the same was second revision by the same party which is barred. 8. Considering the findings of fact recorded by the trial court as well as other facts & circumstance of the case no interference is required against the impugned judgment and writ petition is dismissed.