Sunday, July 24, 2016

In Other Courts: Allahabad High Court - Sat Pal Singh & Another Vs The Additional Commissioner & Others

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

(Judgment reserved on 27.10.2010)
(Judgment delivered on 4.2.2011)

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32066 of 1998

Petitioner :- Sat Pal Singh & Another
Respondent :- The Additional Commissioner & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- R.K.Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,V.K.Singh

Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Matter relates to allotment of plot nos. 213 by gaon sabha in favour of respondent no.4 Chaman. The case of the petitioners as disclosed in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the writ petition is that out of total area of 8 biswa 5 biswancies of the said plot, an area of 6 biswa 15 biswancies was given to petitioner no.1 and remaining area to petitioner no.2 in a reference under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation through order dated 21.5.1969. Prior to that the said plot was entered as navin parti i.e. land of gaon sabha. According to further case of the petitioners, inspite of order of 21.5.1969 said plot continued to be recorded in the name of the gaon sabha, in revenue records and simultaneously petitioners' names were also entered. Copy of the alleged order dated 21.5.1969 has not been annexed alongwith writ petition. In para-2 it has been stated that the names of the petitioners were recorded in shudh khatauni of 1388 ? 1393 fasli. 1388 fasli corresponds to 1980-81 A.D. There is absolutely no explanation as to why since 1969 A.D. till 1981 A.D. i.e. for 11 years the names were not recorded. Moreover there is absolutely no explanation as to why petitioners did not take any steps for expunging the name of gaon sabha from the revenue record. If in-fact some order had been passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation then there is absolutely no reason as to why it would have been incorporated in the records only partially i.e. entry of the plot in dispute in the name of petitioners without scoring off the name of the gaon sabha in the revenue records. It is not un-common in consolidation proceedings to come up with forged orders shown to have been passed before 10 years or more and seeking entry on the basis of the same. In this regard reference may also be made to a recent authority of Supreme Court given in Civil Appeal no.1132 of 2011 Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab dated 28.1.2011. Para-20 of the same is quoted below:-
"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."
The gaon sabha allotted the land in dispute in favour of respondent no.2 on 21.2.1976 which was approved on 30.3.1976 by the Sub Divisional Officer concerned. Petitioner filed application for cancellation of the said patta on 30.7.1997 under section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The said application was rejected on 9.10.1997 by Collector, Saharanpur. On that date no one was present on behalf of the applicant. It was dismissed on the ground that it was utterly beyond time having been filed after about 21 years. Against the said order revision no.10 of 1997-98 was filed which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur division, Saharanpur on 9.9.1998 hence this writ petition.
In the khatauni of 1388 to 1393 fasli itself, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, a note has been appended to the effect that in the available khatauni against khata no.307 at several place there was cutting and overwriting which was not signed and amaldaramad was also in different ink and that the copying clerk had prepared the copy from the original as far as he could read that however there were chances of error (in the copy).
Accordingly, I do not find least error in the impugned orders. Application for cancellation of patta after 21 years was not maintainable. Petitioner has not been able to show that he had any right over the land in dispute.
Writ petition is dismissed. Possession of the land must forthwith be delivered to respondent no.4. The Collector shall arrange delivery of possession.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Shri S.P.Mishra, learned standing counsel within three days.
Order Date :- 4.2.2011

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).

No comments:

Post a Comment