Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2321
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.
Sarvesh Kumar & 5 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate Hardoi & 5 Ors. - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. - 6397 of 2014
Decided On : 22-07-2014
For the Petitioner: Hari Shankar Jain.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
The petitioners must produce sufficient evidence to indicate forgery in revenue records and have alternative remedies available under the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of records and for seeking injunction against dispossession.
Headnote:
Forgery - Land Dispute - The court found that the petitioners did not produce sufficient evidence to indicate forgery in the revenue records, and that they have alternative remedies available under the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of records and for seeking injunction against dispossession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be shopkeepers, alleged that the sixth respondent was attempting to forcibly dispossess them from the land they were running shops on. They disputed the title and interest of the sixth respondent and sought an enquiry into alleged forgery in revenue records and an injunction against dispossession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not produce sufficient material to indicate forgery in the revenue records and that they have alternative remedies available under the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of records and for seeking injunction against dispossession. The court clarified that its order does not express any opinion on the merits of the case and left it open to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies available in law.
Issues: Dispute over land title and interest, alleged forgery in revenue records, and injunction against dispossession.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners did not produce sufficient evidence to indicate forgery in the revenue records, and they have alternative remedies available under the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of records and for seeking injunction against dispossession.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.
The petitioners who claim to be shopkeepers, running shops on land bearing Khasra No.305, Village Bojhbhar, Andar Nagar Palika, Bilgram, district Hardoi, claim that the sixth respondent is attempting to forcibly dispossess them. It has been alleged that the sixth respondent managed to get his name recorded in the revenue records 'at any time' between December 2013 and January 2014 over Gata No.305 and that he wishes to construct a Madarsa, Mosque and Slaughter House on the land.
2. The petitioners dispute the title and interest of the sixth respondent. Two reliefs have been sought in these proceedings. The first is an enquiry into the charges levelled against the Lekhpal of having colluded with the sixth respondent for making a forgery in the revenue records. The second relief is for an injunction against the dispossession of the petitioners from the land.
3. Prima facie, at this stage, the petitioners have not produced material which would indicate that there has been a forgery in the revenue records so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Merely annexing the revenue extracts for certain periods would not lead to the inference of a forgery. In so far as the relief against dispossession is concerned, which is in the nature of the primary relief claimed, the petitioners have a remedy available before the appropriate forum for grant of an injunction. Moreover, the petitioners have a remedy available under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for the correction of the revenue records.
4. We clarify that this order shall not be construed to be the expression of any opinion on the merits of the case. We, therefore, leave it open to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedies available in law for the correction of the revenue records and in regard to their claim for possession.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
