Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 907 (ALL)

Akbar v. Add. Commissioner Judicial

2025-07-07

IRSHAD ALI

body2025
JUDGMENT : ( Irshad Ali, J.) 1. Heard Sri Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.10.2002 passed by respondent No.1 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the land management committee of Gaon Sabha Daulatyarpur passed a resolution for allotting land of gaon sabha to landless persons including the petitioners on 11.06.1989. The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Bilgram, District Hardoi approved the resolution on 11.06.1989 of the land management committee of the gaon sabha. 4. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 and father of respondent Nos.3 & 4 moved application under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancellation of patta of the petitioners only in respect of plot No.813 area 0.594 hectare and plot No.814 area 0.367 hectare on the basis of forged order dated 25.10.1969 of the Consolidation Officer. Later on, same was transferred before the court of Additional Collector, Hardoi. 5. The petitioners filed objection in the court of Additional Collector, Hardoi. The petitioners and their witnesses filed their affidavits in respect of their cases before the trial court. 6. The Additional Collector, rejected the application under Section 198 (4) of UPZA & LR Act of respondent Nos.3 to 7 after considering the entire material on record. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 filed revision before respondent No.1 under Section 333 -A of UPZA & LR Act. Respondent No.1 allowed the revision of respondent Nos.3 to 7, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of Additional Commissioner dated 28.10.2002. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entries shown by the document issued by the Consolidation Officer is forged and fabricated, therefore, the finding returned without summoning the record of revisional court is wholly erroneous and perverse in nature. 8. Along with supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners has annexed copy of application moved by his Advocate on 03.05.2024 to the effect that Gaon Sabha Daulatyarpur, Pargana Mallawa, Tehsil Bilgram related misilband register be permitted to see, whereon vide order dated 20.05.2024 it was informed that the said register is not available in the office. 9. 8. Along with supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners has annexed copy of application moved by his Advocate on 03.05.2024 to the effect that Gaon Sabha Daulatyarpur, Pargana Mallawa, Tehsil Bilgram related misilband register be permitted to see, whereon vide order dated 20.05.2024 it was informed that the said register is not available in the office. 9. His next submission is that the document, which was produced by the Tehsildar is alleged to have been passed in misuse of power under Rule 115(C) and invited attention on Rule 115 (C) of the Rules framed under the Act and submitted that the Tehsildar does not have power to make entries in the name of private parties. 10. He also invited attention of this Court to annexure SA-2, which is an application dated 15.07.2024 for perusal of entries made in original suit No.225/119 under Section 115 (C) dated 30.10.1956, wherein return has been made on 15.07.2024 that the related record does not have been found in the office. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel invited attention of this Court on page 17 of the record of writ petition, wherein he placed reliance on last paragraph of page 16 and said that on perusal of order dated 25.10.1969, which is in regard to title is derived that the order is final and due to some reason, no mutation could take place. 12. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Additional Commissioner merely relying on a forged document has proceeded to record finding and in this regard relevant statement of fact has been given in paragraph 19 of the writ petition, which has not been denied by filing counter affidavit. 13. Learned counsel for private respondents submitted that the order of Additional Commissioner passed in the revision does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is just and valid. 14. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 15. On perusal of CH form, which is placed on record, disputed numbers which are old numbers 1090, 1091, 1092 and 1093, which are numbers before the consolidation operations, the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 25.10.1969 in regard to the title over the land in dispute. 15. On perusal of CH form, which is placed on record, disputed numbers which are old numbers 1090, 1091, 1092 and 1093, which are numbers before the consolidation operations, the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 25.10.1969 in regard to the title over the land in dispute. On its perusal, it is certified that the respondent Nos.3 to 7 have been declared to be Seechdar of the disputed numbers, but due to some reason or otherwise, the mutation could not take place, therefore, at the time of lease, the land was shown as Usal. It is settled principle of law that if under the public document, it is certified that there are some orders of the Consolidation Officer then it is seen to be correct and genuine till by producing documentary evidence, it is not shown to be illegal or forged. 16. On the record, there is no material to establish that certified copies produced of the CH form are not genuine, therefore, the determination of the lower court that due to non mutation of land, it comes under the suspicious category, therefore, as per the opinion of the lower court, due to non mutation of land, it comes under the suspicious category and is not legally valid document is an erroneous finding and cannot be accepted in the eyes of law. 17. On the other hand, the respondents, by relying on the document, which is judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 25.10.1969 to be genuine document, therefore, it is accepted as relevant evidence. The petitioner claimed that to save himself from the ceiling proceeding, the mutation was not done by the respondent Nos.3 to 7 but no evidence was produced by the petitioner. The revisional court on the basis of no evidence and certificate produced before the lower court, came to the conclusion that the reasons assigned are not tenable in law. The lower court has not come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence and on the said basis, the proceeding for cancellation of lease was accepted and the lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled. The finding recorded by the revisional court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, therefore, cannot be interfered by this Court. 18. The petitioner has not challenged the finding recorded by the revisional court that the order of the Consolidation Officer is genuine in nature and cannot be ignored. The finding recorded by the revisional court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, therefore, cannot be interfered by this Court. 18. The petitioner has not challenged the finding recorded by the revisional court that the order of the Consolidation Officer is genuine in nature and cannot be ignored. The respondents have filed supplementary affidavit, enclosing the Goswara Register, wherein property has been shown in the name of the respondents. The certified copy produced by the learned counsel for the respondents is taken on record alongwith the photocopy enclosed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. 19. In view of the reasons recorded above, the finding returned by the revisional court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is just and valid, therefore, this Court declines to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the revisional court in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 20. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.