Back
2012 Supreme(All) 2587
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : PRAKASH KRISHNA AND ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI (II), JJ.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ....Defendants/Appellants
Versus
AJAY SINGH AND OTHERS ....Plaintiffs/Respondents
(First Appeal No. 658 of 2005, decided on 28th September, 2012)
Counsel :
S.C. for the Appellants; R.S. Mishra, B.K. Mishra and S.K. Srivastava for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Revenue record—Document of title—It does not create or extinguish title of person concerned—Although such entry is generally accepted by Courts at its face value—But it is open to attack on ground that it is fraudulent—Fraud and forgery rob genuineness of that entry and takes away its legal effect. [Paras 24 to 31]
(B) Pleadings—Plea not taken in pleadings by a party—No evidence can be permitted to be adduced on such plea—Moreover, no evidence can cure that defect, i.e., of fact not pleaded—Because pleadings are foundation of litigation. [Paras 41 to 44]
(C) U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901—Sections 33 to 39—Correction or change in revenue record entry—Procedure for—Has been prescribed in Sections 33 to 38. [Para 53]
(D) Specific Relief Act, 1963—Sections 34, 38 and 41—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 9 and Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2—U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Sections 229-B, 229-D and 331—Forest Act, 1927—Sections 27-A—Suit—Declaration—Filed by plaintiffs—For land situated in village—In plaint no source of title was disclosed—Defendants specifically pleaded that land in dispute was forest land and was declared as such by notification issued under Section 20 in 1928—Entries made in favour of plaintiffs in revenue record were forged and manupluted—Plaintiffs failed to prove their source of title—They took different stand regarding their title which was not taken in pleadings—Even this different stand could not be proved—Land in dispute was found to be forest land—It was never altered and declared to have ceased to be forest land—High Court examined every aspect of this case and found that suit filed before Civil Court was barred by Section 331 and deserved dismissed—It was barred by Sections 41 and 38 also—Trial Court failed to look several vital legal aspects—Its decree deserved to be set aside.
[Paras 15 to 23, 32 to 39, 44 to 46, 49, 51, 53 to 57, 61, 63 to 69, 71, 74, 77, 78, 80 and 81]
(E) Forest Act, 1927—Section 27-A (as inserted in U.P. by U.P. Act No. 23 of 1965), 27 and 20—Forest land—Declaration—Gazatte Notification issued under Section 20—Declaring certain land to be forest land—Such declaration cannot be changed unless fresh Gazette Notification under Section 27 or 27-A is issued, declaring that land declared to be forest land, ceases to be such land. [Para 63]
(F) High Court's observation—Land—Grabbing—Government land grabbing by Government Official—Is unfortunate act by High Court—Truth alone should be foundation of justice—High Court in this case examined facts extensively for finding out truth and discovered it. [Paras 80 and 81]
By the Court.—It is an unfortunate case. The facts of the case unveils how some Government servants, here two officials, who were in possession of revenue record, as part of duty to protect the Government land, colluded with each other to grab the Government property by forging the revenue record and entered the names of their wives and sons who are plaintiffs herein. Thus, they caused an estimated loss to the extent of Rs. 50 crores to the public exchequer as found in the inquiry report dated 11.4.2002.
2. This is defendants’ appeal against the original judgment and decree dated 30th of May, 2005.
3. Present first appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. through Collector, Bijnor and Forest Range Officer, Amangarh Range, Bijnor against the judgement and decree dated 30.5.2005 and 8.7.2005, respectively, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Bijnor by which the suit has been decreed being O.S. No. 545 of 1991 Ajay Singh son of Mahavir Singh, Abdullah son of Mohamood Khan, Smt. Akhtari daughter of Imamuddin and Smt. Nirmala Devi Daughter of Chhote Lal, all residents of village-Rani Nangala, Post Afzalgarh, Tehsil Nagina, District Bijnor. against State of U.P. through Collector, Bijnor and and Forest Range Officer, Amangarh, Range, Bijnor and directed defendants not to interfere in ownership and peaceful possession of plaintiffs over Plots No. 24/2 to 24/5, 27/02, 28/1, 29 to 32 area 89 bigha, 18 biswa situated in village-Rani Nangala, district Bijnor.
4. From perusal of record, it transpires that the respondents herein filed the above mentioned civil suit for permanent injunction against the State of U.P. through Collector and Forest Range Officer, Amangarh, Bijnor alleging that they are owners in possession of the disputed plots. Defendant No. 2 has its office near that land and its employees are inimical to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are using the disputed plots by sowing and reaping the crops and defendants have no concern with the land. There were some trees in the disputed plots due to which they were feeling difficulty in using that portion of the land. So, they moved an application for permission to cut those trees on 20.3.1990 before Prabhagiya, Van Adhikari (Tarai, Pashchim Van Prabhag), Ram Nagar, who was the superior officer of defendant No. 2 and had power to grant permission. In this matter, defendant No. 2 was expecting some bribe from plaintiffs and due to non-fulfilment of that demand, they were inimical to them. The defendants threatened that neither they will permit them to cut the trees nor the plaintiffs will be permitted to use the land for agriculture purpose. Several letters were written for permission to cut the trees, though due to lapse of time, the permission deemed to be granted. On 5.7.1991, defendant No. 2 and other persons alongwith Police force came and demolished their Dera and took away other agricultural implements and hand-pump etc. Plaintiffs filed the suit without giving any notice under Section 80 CPC on the pretext that if notice is given, then the delay will defeat the purpose of suit and prayed for exemption from giving notice under Section 80 CPC. The plaintiffs after filing the suit, prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering in ploughing, sowing and reaping the crops and using the land and also be restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs.
5. Defendants filed their written statements denying that plaintiffs are owners in possession or bhumidhar of the disputed land. They also denied that they are tenant of village-Rani Nangala because the disputed land along with other land has been declared reserved forest under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act and plaintiffs have no right to challenge the notification for that purpose. It was stated that disputed land is a forest land and is in control and possession of Forest Department. The standing trees are also property of the forest department. According to plaintiffs own admission, t
