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
NLY
No comments:
Post a Comment