Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3110
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Kifayat Husain - Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. and Others - Respondent
WritB No. 7235 of 2012 and WritB No. 30161 of 2015
Decided On : 15-07-2016
For the Petitioner:- K.D. Tiwari, B.K. Pandey Advocate.
For the Respondent:- C.S.C., Mahesh Narain Singh, S.P. Singh, Surendra Nath Tripathi, Uma Shankar and Umesh Shanker, Advocates.
The court emphasized the significance of unchallenged findings of fraud and overwriting in revenue records, and the impact of the expiration of the Asami lease under Rule 176A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.
Headnote:
Fraud, Overwriting, and Interpolation - Land Dispute - Section 48 of the Act - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Section 202 - Rule 176A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a land plot in Village Amberpur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur. The petitioner claimed ownership based on recorded entries, while the respondents alleged fraud and overwriting in the revenue records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Director of Consolidation's findings of fraud, overwriting, and interpolation in the revenue records were not contested by the petitioner. The court also highlighted the expiration of the Asami lease as a crucial factor in the decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authenticity of recorded entries, allegations of fraud and overwriting, and the expiration of the Asami lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unchallenged findings of fraud and overwriting, as well as the legal provision regarding the expiration of the Asami lease under Rule 176A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.
Final Decision: Writ petition no. 7235 of 2012 was dismissed, and writ petition no. 30161 of 2015 was disposed of in accordance with the court's directions and observations.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –
I have heard Shri B.K. Pandey for the petitioner in writ petition no. 30161 of 2015, Shri K.D. Tiwari for the petitioner in writ petition no. 7235 of 2012 and Shri Umesh Shanker for the respondents. I have also heard learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in this writ petitions.
2. The writ petition no. 7235 of 2012 filed by Kifayat Husain is directed against an order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the respondent no. 4 which appears to have been passed in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act.
3. Against this order dated 16.12.2011, Ali Bahadur and Mohammad Jaan filed a restoration application, which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. These two persons filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.08.2013 granting them liberty to file an appropriate application before the District Magistrate/Collector, Rampur. This application was duly filed, but it was rejected by the District Magistrate on 30.09.2013, on the ground of pendency of writ petition no. 7235 of 2012.
4. The writ petition no. 30161 of 2015 filed by Ali Bahadur is directed against the order of the District Magistrate dated 16.12.2011. A mandamus is also sought for necessary action in pursuance of the order dated 16.12.2011.
5. When the petition no. 30161 of 2015 came up for admission, the record of writ petition no. 7235 of 2012 was summoned and both these petitions have been heard and are being decided finally. The decision in writ petition no. 7235 of 2012 is likely to dispose of writ petition no. 30161 of 2015 also.
6. The dispute in the writ petition no. 7235 of 2012 pertains to plot no. 304/2 area 1.13 hectares of Village Amberpur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur. The claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is that this plot no. 304 area 2.26 hectares was recorded under class 3 in CH Form 23 and 45 of 1367 Fasli in his name and in the name of Abdul Gafoor, father of respondent no. 4, in this writ petition. The recorded co-tenure holder, Abdul Gafoor, took a loan from the Bank and mortgaged his half share in the disputed land. Since the loan was not repaid, the mortgaged land was auctioned for recovery of the loan. The auction purchaser, one Sukhvinder Singh filed a suit for partition, which was decreed and his share was numbered as plot no. 304/1. The remaining portion namely plot no. 304/2 belongs to the petitioner.
7. A suit under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed against the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha. The suit was decreed on the ground that period of the Asami lease had expired.
8. The petitioner preferred appeal no. 39 of 2003-04, which was allowed on 25.01.2006 and the matter was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for a fresh decision.
9. The Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a judgment and order dated 27.07.2010, dismissing the suit on the ground that it was not proved that the khata in question was an Asami khata.
10. Thereafter the respondent no. 4 in this writ petition filed a complaint/application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the order impugned, dated 16.12.2011, directed that the name of the petitioner be expunged from the land in question. He returned categorical findings, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, that the name of the petitioner was incorporated in CH Form 23 and 24 by resorting to overwriting. It was observed that it was a case of overwriting, because in the CH Form 11 filed, only the name of Abdul Gafoor was recorded over the land in question. A further direction was issued that the papers be forwarded to the District Magistrate for passing appropriate orders and also for taking action against the persons responsible for this interpolation in the revenue records, made without any order having been passed by any competent authority in this regard.
11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his name is recorded in CH Form 23 and
