Friday, February 10, 2017

In Other Courts: Allahabad High Court - Jurakhan & 9 Others Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow & 2 Others

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

Court No. - 21 

Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 5306 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Jurakhan & 9 Others 
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow & 2 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kudesia 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. 

Exercising powers under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, this court proposes to decide the entire controversy by itself. No further proceedings in any court in this matter shall be taken. 

It is more than evident that the Additional Deputy Collector Sadar, Lucknow has gifted the State property in dispute to respondent No.3, Ram Kishor, son of late Kunj Bihari. Now the ten petitioners claiming to be co-laterals of Ram Kishor also want their share in the loot. However, the petitioners have done a good job by bringing the matter to the notice of the court. Lekhpal gave a report on 05.12.2012 blindly in favour of respondent No.3, which is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Lekhpal gave report on an application under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The application was filed on 28.03.2012. After 37 years, State/ Gaon Sabha land or anyone's land cannot be given to some other person merely on an application under Section 33/39 of U.P.L.R. Act. Respondent No.3 claimed that the property in dispute was entered in his name in Khatauni 1376-78 Fasli. He did not give any reason as to why thereafter his name was not continued in the revenue record. Lekhpal categorically reported that after 1382 Fasli (1974-75 A.D.) the property in dispute i.e. Plot No.357/2, area 2 bigha was not entered in anyone's name. It means that the land was State or Gaon Sabha property. Lekhpal also reported that records from the year 1363 to 1375 Fasli were in torn state hence nothing could be verified therefrom. Benefit of this state of affairs could not be given to the petitioners otherwise any one can claim any other person's property. No State property and no property of a private tenure-holder appears to be safe in the hands of such Lekhpals and Deputy Collectors. Under somewhat similar circumstances, I held in paras 22 to 27 in U.P. Awas Evam Vkas Parishad, Lucknow Vs. Lajja Ram, 2012, (3) AWC 2226, as follows: 

"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." 

The area of the land in dispute is 0.506 hectare and it is situate in Gomti Nagar and appears to be prime land. May be the intention of respondent No.3 was to get compensation of the said land as it is stated to have been acquired. 

Issue notice to respondent No.3 to show cause as to why the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by Sudhir Kumar Rungta, Additional Deputy Collector (S.D.O.), Sadar Lucknow shall not be set aside. 

Until further order property shall remain with the State/ Gaon Sabha or the acquiring body, if it has been acquired. Neither respondent No.3 nor the petitioners shall be permitted to put their feet thereupon. The Lekhpal, who gave the reports on 05.12.2012 prima facie does not deserve to remain in service. It is directed that disciplinary proceedings against the Additional Collector as well as lekhpal shall immediately be initiated. 

List for further orders on 12.09.2013. 

Let the effect of this order be recorded in the revenue records immediately. 

Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional C.S.C. 
Order Date :- 14.8.2013 

No comments:

Post a Comment