Back
2016 Supreme(All) 4020
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Khursheed Sherwani and 2 others - Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner(Judicial), Aligarh and 3 others - Respondent
Writ C. No. 36455 of 2016
Decided On : 03-10-2016
For the Petitioner:- Vishnu Singh and Anil Kumar Rai, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- C.S.C. Manu Singh, Advocate.
The importance of providing evidence to support claims of land allotment and the authority to expunge fraudulent entries under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Headnote:
Land Revenue Act - Proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The dispute relates to the allotment of plots in a village, where the petitioner claimed ownership based on a resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha. The revenue entries were found to be fraudulent, and the petitioner failed to provide evidence of the alleged allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim lacked evidence and upheld the orders to expunge the fraudulent entries and dismiss the revision.
Issues: Validity of the alleged allotment, jurisdiction under U.P. Land Revenue Act, and cancellation of lease under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the lack of evidence for the alleged allotment and the authority to expunge fraudulent entries under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –
Heard Shri V.K. Singh for the petitioners, Shri Manu Singh for the Land Management Committee, respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.07.2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-Ist), Aligarh Division, Aligarh.
3. The dispute in the writ petition relates to Plot No. 83 Sa area 1.248 hectares and plot no. 67 area 1.151 hectares of village Newoli.
4. The proceedings were initiated on the report of the Tehsildar that the plots in question are recorded as Naveen Parti in CH Form 45. A resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha on 21.01.1981. In this resolution at Sr. No. 64, an allotment was proposed in favour of the petitioner of Plot Nos. 67, 83 Sa, 85 Sa, 313 and 4. However, the resolution in so far as the proposed allotment in favour of the petitioner, the same was not approved. It was further reported that the entry in favour of the petitioner was fraudulent. No school or its play ground exists over the plots in question. The land is being cultivated on lease at the instance of the Sugar Factory, Neoli and is known as the Factory Farm.
5. Upon notice being issued to the petitioners, a reply was filed that the revenue entries are correct; the name of the petitioner had been recorded over the land in question vide order dated 25.05.1985 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It was also stated that a question of title was involved, which could not be determined in summary proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
6. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22.07.2011 found the entry in favour of the petitioner to be fraudulent and without any basis. It was therefore, ordered to be expunged and the plots in question directed to be recorded as Naveen Parti, also on the ground that the petitioner had failed to adduce any evidence to show as to how it acquired the land in question.
7. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred a revision. It appears that before the revisional Court, it was urged that a resolution had been passed by the Gaon Sabha on 05.04.1985 for allotting the plots in question to the petitioner. This resolution was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 25.05.1985 and on its basis the name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in question.
8. This revision, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2015 on the reasoning that despite opportunity, petitioner was unable to produce any evidence of an allotment in its favour. Neither the agenda, ZA Form 57Kha or Munadi etc. were filed.
9. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders impugned had been passed beyond the scope of Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which provisions are only for correction of papers. The impugned orders are therefore, without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that a lease could be cancelled only under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. There was no proper adjudication by a competent court on the question of validity of the lease. It is also urged that the record of the allotment proceedings could have been summoned to examine its validity. The Courts below have therefore committed manifest illegality warranting interference by the writ Court.
10. In view of the submissions made, this Court vide order dated 08.08.2016 directed learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions and to produce the record of the alleged allotment in favour of the petitioner.
11. On 24.08.2016, the original file of allotment proceedings in pursuance of the resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 21.01.1981 was produced. Subsequently on 14.09.2016, the original Khatauni from 1392 Fasli till the start of consolidation operations in the year 1995 was also dir
