Back
2019 Supreme(All) 648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J.
Gaon Sabha Thariya Distt. Hardoi Thru Village Pradhan & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow And Ors. - Respondents
MISC. SINGLE No. - 1534 of 2019
Decided on : 18-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ram Narain Gupta, Anurag Narain
For the Respondent: C.S.C., O.P.M. Tripathi, R.P. Yadav, Ram Lagan Mishra, Vijay Kumar Pandey
Headnote:
U.P. Land Revenue Act – Section 34 – U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act – section 167, section 189/194 – U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules, 1952 – Rule 172 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Challenged order dated passed by Sub Divisional Officer, whereby restoration application preferred by petitioner seeking setting aside order and restoring case, has also been rejected – Dispute relates to land comprised in khasra plot respectively of khata – Held, No hesitation to hold that while passing order Sub Divisional Officer not acted in terms of requirements of rule 172 of Rules and has thus, manifestly erred in law – He did not have any jurisdiction to have upset findings recorded by Tehsildar in his order that Mataru had died intestate for reason that said order was not challenged by respondent in appeal – Matter remitted to Sub Divisional Officer concerned for drawing proceedings under section 189/194 of Act read with Rule 172 of Rules, 1952 afresh – Sub Divisional Officer shall thus proceed with matter in terms of this order and decide same expeditiously, within period of three months from date of production of certified copy of this order – Directions issued – Petition allowed. (Paras: 43 to 48)
Facts of the case:
Challenged order dated passed by Sub Divisional Officer, whereby restoration application preferred by petitioner seeking setting aside order and restoring case, has also been rejected – Dispute relates to land comprised in khasra plot respectively of khata
Findings of the court:
No hesitation to hold that while passing order Sub Divisional Officer not acted in terms of requirements of rule 172 of Rules and has thus, manifestly erred in law – He did not have any jurisdiction to have upset findings recorded by Tehsildar in his order that Mataru had died intestate for reason that said order was not challenged by respondent in appeal – Matter remitted to Sub Divisional Officer concerned for drawing proceedings under section 189/194 of Act read with Rule 172 of Rules, 1952 afresh – Sub Divisional Officer shall thus proceed with matter in terms of this order and decide same expeditiously, within period of three months from date of production of certified copy of this order – Directions issued.
Result: Petition allowed
1. These proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee, Village-Thariya, Tehsil-Sawaizpur, district-Hardoi challenge the validity of the order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector, First Class, Sawaizpur, Hardoi, whereby he has rejected the alleged report submitted by the Tehsildar, dated 15.04.2011 which was furnished for taking appropriate action for vesting the land in question in Gaon Sabha/State.
2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, whereby the restoration application preferred by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.07.2012 and restoring the case, has also been rejected.
3. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, (Judicial)-First, Lucknow Division, Lucknow challenging the orders dated 23.07.2012 and 26.10.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, which too, has been dismissed by the learned revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 04.01.2019. This order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned revisional court, is also under challenge herein.
4. The facts of the case, which can be deduced from the pleadings available on record, are that the dispute relates to land comprised in khasra plot nos.32 and 185 having an area of 1.063 and 1.012 hectares respectively of khata no.68 of khatauni pertaining to 1414 F to 1419 F years, situate in village-Thariya, Pargana-Pachhoha, Tehsil-Sawaizpur, Dstrict-Hardoi. Undisputed recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute was one Mataru, son of Devideen. On his death, several applications for mutation were moved under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. One such application for mutation was moved by Balveer Singh and Ranveer Singh, who are respondent nos.7 and 8 herein.
5. The Lekhapal also submitted a report in relation to transfer of land and simultaneously the Village Pradhan of the village concerned also moved an application on behalf of Gaon Sabha. Another set of application was moved for mutation by one Shishpal, son of Jatadhari. Raghuveer Singh, son of Basant Singh also filed objection claiming mutation of his name on the basis of succession. According to Raghuveer Singh, he is the successor of the land in question being father's father's, son's son of the deceased tenure holder, Mataru. He denied the claim of the respondent nos.7 and 8 who had claimed mutation of their names on the basis of succession stating that they are the sister's sons of the deceased tenure holder. The Land Management Committee had filed objection stating therein that since the recorded tenure holder Mataru had died without leaving any heir behind him and that neither Raghuveer Singh, nor the respondent nos.7 and 8 are the successors of the deceased tenure holder, as such the land be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The Gaon Sabha also stated in its objection that neither the respondent nos.7 and 8, nor Shish Pal, Chhote Singh and Raghuveer Singh are in possession over the land in question.
6. On issuance of proclamation, parties to the proceedings were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. The Tehsildar, however, on the basis of the evaluation of evidence available on record, considered the entire matter and found in his order dated 15.04.2011 that none of the applicants/objectors were entitled to mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the land in question for the reason that all of them had failed to establish their respective cases. The claim put forth by the respondent nos.7 and 8 for mutation of their names was also rejected. Accordingly, the Tehsildar in his order dated 15.04.2011 has observed that the deceased tenure holder Mataru had died intestate and for further action, he referred the matter/file to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sawaizpur, district-Hardoi.
7. The Sub Divisional Officer, on th
