Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2867
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram, J.
Munna Lal Mittal - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue and Others. - Respondent
Writ-B No. 24834 of 2012
Decided On : 08-05-2014
For the Petitioner: K.D. Tripathi
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Satish Mandhyan, B.D. Mandhyan
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a complete code that excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court and that possession of acquired land does not confer any rights over the land.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Dispute over acquired land - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Section 33/39 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 6, 17 - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Section 6 - Supreme Court judgments on jurisdiction of civil court
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the acquisition of land by the State of U.P. under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the subsequent proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The petitioner claimed possession over the acquired land based on previous civil court decrees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land in dispute was acquired by the State of U.P. and vested in the state free from all encumbrances. It held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was excluded by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioner's claim of possession was barred by res judicata. The court also concluded that the petitioner's possession, if any, was that of a rank trespasser and could not confer any rights over the land.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the civil court, the validity of the petitioner's claim of possession, and the authority to record the petitioner's name in the revenue records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Supreme Court judgments to establish that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a complete code and excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court. It also held that the petitioner's claim of possession was barred by res judicata and that the petitioner's possession did not confer any rights over the acquired land.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, U.P., and directing the deletion of the petitioner's name from the revenue records.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.: -
1. Heard Sri K.D. Tripathi, for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, for the contesting respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Commissioner dated 31.07.2002 allowing the revision of Kishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, U.P. and setting aside the order of Additional City Magistrate dated 07.09.1998 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 10.11.2003, dismissing the revision of the petitioner, arising out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The dispute is in respect of plots 133 (area 2-1-0 bigha) and 134 (area 0-13-15 bigha) of village and tahsil Khairagarh, district Agra. Kishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, U.P. (respondent-3) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed an application (registered as Case No. 2 of 1999) under Section 33/39 of the Act, for recording its name over the land in dispute and deleting the name of the petitioner from it. It was stated by the respondent that the land in dispute was acquired by State of U.P. on the requisition of the respondent under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4 was published on 09.01.1980, invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4), inquiry of Section 5-A was dispensed with. Notification under Section 6 was published on 10.01.1980, authorizing the Collector Agra to take possession over the acquired land. In pursuance thereof possession over the acquired land, including the land in dispute was taken on 09.07.1982. Notification under Section 6 was challenged by some tenure holders, including the petitioner in writ petitions before High Court, which were dismissed on 17.01.1983 and Special Leave Petition filed by them were also dismissed on 06.04.1984. After taking possession over the land in dispute, it vested in State of U.P. free from all encumbrances under Section 17 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The case was contested by the petitioner on the ground that by an order dated 27.03.1995, passed under Section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, declaring the land in dispute as abadi as such Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of the land in dispute as it is no more 'land' as defined under the Act. The petitioner filed a civil suit (registered as O.S. No. 297 of 1984), which was decreed by Additional Civil Judge Agra by judgment dated 12.12.1990 and Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1991 filed by the respondents from the aforesaid decree has been dismissed by judgment dated 09.11.1995. These judgments have become final. The petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute as such his name cannot be deleted.
4. The case was decided by Additional City Magistrate, Agra, who by order dated 30.10.1999 held that the name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute by order dated 12.12.1991. Thereafter the land in dispute was declared as abadi by order dated 27.03.1995 under Section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. From the evidence on record, possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute was proved. Civil Court also found that the petitioner was in possession over the land in dispute since 1978. Such an entry cannot be corrected, in exercise of powers under Section 33/39 of the Act. On these findings the application of the respondent was dismissed by order dated 30.10.1999.
5. The respondent filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1775 of 1999) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 31.07.2002 held that the land in dispute was acquired by notification under Section 4 dated 09.01.1980 and notification under Section 6 dated 10.01.1980. The Collector took possession over the acquired land on 09.07.1982. Acquisition of the land in dispute has been upheld by Supreme Court by order dated 06.04.1984. The order passed under Section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 has been challenged
