Back
Allahbad High Court
OMPRAKASHTRIVEDI
Rekha Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 05/04/1973
LAND REVENUE ACT - SECTION 28 - CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN MAP OR FIELD-BOOK - POWER OF COLLECTOR - DISPUTED ERRORS - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS OF ENTRIES IN RECORD OF RIGHTS - SECTION 57 - CHALLENGE TO ENTRIES - CIVIL SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, tenants of plots in villages declared as reserve forest, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the State and Forest Department from encroaching on their land. The High Court had earlier issued a mandamus directing the State to demarcate the land and release any encroached land to the petitioners. Despite the order, the State allegedly failed to comply, and the petitioners moved for contempt proceedings. The State and Forest Department submitted an apology, and demarcation proceedings were carried out, revealing encroachment by the Forest Department. The petitioners apprehended that the State might make illegal changes in the Khasras, Khataunis, and maps of the villages, affecting their rights.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Collector had no power to make changes in the Khasras, Khataunis, and maps of the villages under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act or any other provision of the Act. Section 28 empowers the Collector to record changes in village or field boundaries and correct errors in the map or field-book. However, the Court found that there were no allegations of changes in boundaries or errors in the map or field-book. The alleged forgery of the map, based on its inconsistency with a copy in the Board of Revenue's office, did not constitute an error under Section 28. The Court also held that disputed errors in the map or Khasra could only be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court, as the Collector's power under Section 28 was non-judicial and could not adversely affect the rights of any party.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector has the power to make changes in the Khasras, Khataunis, and maps of villages under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act or any other provision of the Act? 2. Whether disputed errors in the map or Khasra can be corrected by the Collector under Section 28? 3. Whether the presumption of correctness of entries in the record of rights under Section 57 of the Act applies to disputed errors?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act empowers the Collector to record changes in village or field boundaries and correct errors in the map or field-book. However, the Court held that this power is limited to undisputed errors and does not extend to disputed errors, which must be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. 2. The Court held that the Collector's power under Section 28 is non-judicial and cannot adversely affect the rights of any party. Therefore, disputed errors in the map or Khasra cannot be corrected by the Collector under Section 28. 3. The Court held that the presumption of correctness of entries in the record of rights under Section 57 of the Act applies to disputed errors. Therefore, the entries in the Khasras, Khataunis, and maps of the villages, which were prepared during record operations and had become final, could not be challenged except through a proper legal proceeding in the Civil Court.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the opposite parties were commanded not to make any changes in the Khasras, Khataunis, and maps of the villages prepared during record operations, except on the basis of a declaration obtained from the competent Civil Court through proper legal proceedings.
2. The petitioner's case is that they are the tenants of plots lying in villages Saran Kalan, Bhageria Sohni, Ponda and Niddhipurwa as specified in para 1 of the petition : that adjoining the land of the petitioners there is forest area which has been declared by the State of Uttar Pradesh to be reserve forest under a notification of 12-9-1967. It is alleged that the Forest Department illegally and wrongfully encroached upon and included a part of petitioners' land by fixing demarcation pillars, whereupon they applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer Nanpara for demarcation of forest land. The said application came up for disposal before the Additional Sub-Division Officer Nanpara who rejected the same, whereafter the petitioners filed an application before the Divisional Forest Officer for demarcation of the Forest land which was also rejected in March, 1971. Aggrieved by this petitioner No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 504 of 1971, petitioner No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 505 of 1971, petitioners Nos. 3 to 7 filed Writ Petition No. 506 of 1971, petitioners Nos. 8 to 11 filed Writ Petition No. 507 of 1971, petitioners Nos. 12 to 15 filed Writ Petition No. 509 of 1971, petitioner No. 16 fied Writ Petition No. 510 of 1971 and petitioner No. 17 filed Writ Petition No. 508 of 1971 in this Court. These Writ Petitions were heard together and decided by a common judgment. The petitions were allowed and a writ of mandamus issued commanding the State of Uttar Pradesh to get the land of the petitioners demarcated and directing that if on demarcation it was discovered that any land of the petitioners had been encroached upon the same shall be released in their favour forthwith. Aggrieved by this order the State Government filed a special appeal and also applied for stay but the prayer for stay was rejected. The special appeal was however, admitted and is still pending. It was alleged that the State Government did not obey the mandamus issued in the said writ petitions and the petitioners moved for taking contempt proceedings against it. Upon a notice being issued to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be taken the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Divisional Forest Officer submitted an apology. Thereafter in compliance with the order of the Single Judge in the said writ petitions demarcation of petitioners' land in the said five villages was done by the Lekhpal and concluded on 3-12-1971. The Lekhpals reported to the Forest Department after demarcation proceedings that the land of the petitioners had been encroached upon and included in forest. The forest Department was directed to remove their boundary pillars and to fix them in accordance with the survey and demarcation carried on by the lekhpals. After submission of the aforesaid reports by the Circle Lekhpals it is alleged that the Deputy Commissioner, Bahraich was taking steps to have changes made in the Khasras, Khataunis and maps of the villages which had been prepared during record operations and which had become final with the closure of those operations. It may be mentioned here that according to the petitioners the aforesaid villages were under record operations from, 1375 Fasli under Government. Notification dated November 28, 1967 mentioned in para 10 of the petition and the said operations were finalised and closed under a notification dated August 2, 1971. All the disputes during the record operations, it is contended, were to be decided by the Record Officer under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Act in the manner prescribed in Section 41. The petitioners maintain that after close of the record operations the Khasras, Khataunis and the maps of these villages could not be corrected by the Record Officer or by the Collector.
3. Again the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
