Monday, April 18, 2016

In Other courts: Chandra Pal Singh vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gonda & 2 Others (Uttar Pradesh)



eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System (Judgment/Order in Text Format)



This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

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.
 
Even though I do not agree with the manner in which D.D.C., Gonda accepted the reference dated 01.02.2011/ 07.02.2011 through three words' order 'Approved as proposed' on 30.05.2011, however, from the perusal of the record, it is quite clear that petitioner with active support of Consolidation Officer and officials is trying to encroach upon Gaon Sahba property comprised in Plots No.692 and 797, area 0.11 acre and 0.51 acre respectively. It appears that the plot numbers were changed subsequently to 39 and 315. The land is situate in Village and Pargana Dikisir Tehsil Tarabganj District Gonda. In the year 1998, petitioner came forward with the case that on 23.09.1961 some order had been passed in his favour by the Consolidation Officer in the earlier consolidation proceedings. Copy of the said order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is inconceivable that in case in 1961 some order had been passed in favour of the petitioner, then his name would not have been immediately entered in the revenue records and continued to be entered as such. On repeated inquiry from the court, learned counsel for petitioner is unable to give any reason as to why his name was not recorded and continued to be recorded. It is more than apparent that no order on 23.09.1961 was passed in favour of petitioner and as records had been weeded out, hence petitioner manufactured the copy of a non-existent order. In consolidation, people are liberally manufacturing the orders and entries and antidating them to 15, 20, 30, 40 or more years before. I have discussed this aspect in detail in U.P. Awas Evam Vkas Parishad, Lucknow Vs. Lajja Ram, 2012, (3) AWC 2226. Paras 22 to 27 of the said authority are quoted below:
 
"The provision of presumption is provided under Section 114 of Evidence Act, which contains some illustrations also. The said section along with illustrations (e) & (f) is quoted below:
"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.
 
Life of law has not been logic, it has been experience (O.W. Holmes). This principle applies with greater force on presumptions and human conduct. I have heard and decided hundreds of matters pertaining to agricultural land and my experience is that Gaon Sabha property has been looted by unscrupulous persons on a very large scale by manipulation in the revenue records and forging of orders particularly of consolidation courts. The modus operendi is that a very old entry or copy of order is produced like a rabbit from the hat of a magician and its resumption or recording is sought.
 
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011, Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, in Para-20 observed as follows:
"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, it is held that whenever a person comes along with the case that Gaon Sabha land was allotted to him or some order was passed by any Court in his favour declaring his right over Gaon Sabha land or some revenue entry was in his favour long before but during last several years his name is not recorded in the revenue records then an irrebuttable presumption amounting to almost conclusive proof must be drawn to the effect that allotment order or entry is forged."

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
NLY



No comments:

Post a Comment