Court No. - 21
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 505 of 2013
Petitioner :- Chandra Pal Singh
Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gonda & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
The Court may presume-
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular case;"
If the presumption of entry in favour of plaintiff's father for four or seven years is to be presumed then presumption of correctness of discontinuance of entry for 40 years will also have to be drawn.
"20. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be compared with the original revenue record showing the land as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices."
In Dina Nath Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (108) R.D. 321, I held that not making any efforts for getting the name of the petitioner entered in the revenue records on the basis of alleged patta by Gaon Sabha for 29 years proved that no patta was executed. I issued directions to all the Collectors to reopen all such cases where names of private persons were entered in the revenue records over Gaon Sabha land. Matter was carried to the Supreme Court in the form of S.L.P. (Civil) C.C.4398 of 2010 Dina Nath Vs. State. The Supreme Court decided the matter on 29.03.2010 and quoted almost my entire judgment in inverted commas and approved the same.
Accordingly, I fully agree with the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order by D.D.C. is not correct for the reason that D.D.C. did not hear the petitioner and did not give reason. However, I have heard learned counsel for petitioner to a great length and I find that it is a clear cut case of forged copy of non-existent order of 1961.
Annexure-3 to the writ petition is copy of an order dated 15.03.1999 passed by Consolidation Officer (Tarab Ganj) whose name is not legible. That order has been passed in Case No.3072 under Section-9A directing entry of petitioner's name on plot No.315, area 0.51 acres (0.206 hectares) and plot No.39 area 0.11 acres (0.045 hectares) after expunging the name of Gaon Sabha on the basis of order dated 23.09.1961 and khatauni 1375-1377 Fasli and namantaran bahi 1376 Fasli. If the said C.O. is still in service disciplinary proceedings must immediately be initiated against him after suspending him. Collector, Gonda/ Deputy Collector, Tarab Ganj Gonda are directed to immediately restore the property in dispute to the Gaon Sabha. Neither further proceedings in any court shall be taken nor any further inquiry in this regard shall be held. It is further directed that whoever may be in possession shall be dispossessed and the land should be restored to the Gaon Sabha.
Writ Petition is disposed of.
In the end learned counsel for petitioner prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn. The prayer is rejected.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional C.S.C. for immediately sending the same to the authorities concerned.
Order Date :- 14.8.2013