Back
2009 Supreme(All) 3690
2010 (3) AWC 2654 (LB)
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT—LUCKNOW BENCH)
Anil Kumar, J.
W.P. No. 2156 (M/S) of 1999
Decided on December 2, 2009
Kailash Nath Singh
Versus
State of U. P. and others
The court emphasized the principle that fraud affects judicial acts and the power of the court to recall its order if obtained by fraud.
Headnote:
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Challenge to Order under Section 117(1) - 1950 - [Patta, Plot Allotment, Revenue Record] - The court discussed the validity of the patta, the entry in the revenue record, and the procedures for allotment of land under Section 198 of the Act. The court found that the patta was forged and fabricated, and the petitioner played fraud in the case. The court also highlighted the principles of fraud affecting judicial acts and the power of the court to recall its order if obtained by fraud.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order expunging his name from the revenue records and recording the land in the name of a college. The petitioner claimed leasehold rights over the plot based on a patta granted by the Land Management Committee. The respondents argued that the patta was forged and fabricated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the patta was forged and the petitioner played fraud. The court highlighted the principles of fraud affecting judicial acts and the power of the court to recall its order if obtained by fraud.
Issues: Validity of the patta, entry in the revenue record, and procedures for allotment of land under Section 198 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The patta was found to be forged and fabricated, and the petitioner played fraud in the case. The court also highlighted the principles of fraud affecting judicial acts and the power of the court to recall its order if obtained by fraud.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order granted in favor of the petitioner was vacated.
Anil Kumar, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.9.1998, passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad, opposite party No. 2, in pursuant to which amaldaramad was made in the khatauni for 1404 to 1409 fasli year in respect of plot No. 477 situate in village Banveerpur, Faizabad under Section 117 (1), U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as an ‘Act’) by the State Government for constructing the building in the name of Gautam Buddh Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya Banveerpur, Faizabad and expunging the name of the petitioner from the said plot from the revenue records.
2. Heard Sri I. D. Shukla, holding brief of Sri S. K. Mehrotra learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nirmal Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, Sri R. N. Gupta learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 and Sri Mahesh Chandra appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 4 and 5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy in present case relates to plot No. 477 (new) (old plot No. 622) measuring 7 bigha and one bishwa situate in village Banveerpur district Faizabad was allotted by way of patta in favour of the petitioner on 30.5.1960 by the Land Management Committee of Village Banveerpur, Faizabad. After allotment of patta in respect of the plot in question, amaldaramad was made in favour of the petitioner in namantaran bahi on 8.7.1986 and thereafter with effect from 13.9.1986 the petitioner was in possession of the plot in question.
4. On 6.2.1992, the Sub-Divisional Officer while exercising his power under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, passed an order on the basis of ex parte report of Naib Tehsildar, Sadar for expunging the entry in the name of the petitioner from the plot in question.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the said authority by means of order dated
23.1.1993, referred the matter in question to the Board of Revenue to set aside the order dated 6.2.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Faizabad.
6. By order dated 6.8.1998, the Board of Revenue accepted the reference made by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad, set aside the order dated 6.2.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Faizabad and remanded the matter in question to the trial court to decide afresh.
7. Further, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue (revenue court) had recorded a finding that the patta was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect to the plot in dispute. Thus, the fact of allotment of the land in dispute by patta in favour of the petitioner was accepted by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 6.8.1998 and further before the Board of Revenue the arguments which were raised by the opposite parties were to the effect that the record relating to the allotment of land in question by way of patta was not available with them and in view of the said arguments, the Board of Revenue in its order dated 6.8.1998 had held that the responsibility for maintaining the revenue record was of the Collector and not of the allottee. Moreover, in the order dated 6.8.1998, it was observed by the Board of Revenue that if there was a dispute in respect of cancellation of patta, the same can be challenged under the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act for cancelling the patta and in view of the said fact it was held that the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was under challenge before the Board of Revenue vitiates as no opportunity of leading the evidence and hearing was given to the petitioner and in view of the said fact the order under challenge before the Board of Revenue was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial c
