Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Brahanand Pandey - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 143 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2023
U.P. Land Revenue Act-1901 - Sections 33/39/225 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - land - Revenue/consolidation records - Certain land covered by Gata No.1149 (renumbered as Gata Nos.329 and 330) is recorded - Allegations made in memo of said application/case are to effect that various private persons (including aforesaid) were obtructing public passage and have succeeded to get wrongful entries made in their names contrary to revenue/consolidation records - Contention of petitioner is to effect that aforesaid land continued to be recorded in consolidation record as "Government land", however, respondent no.5 and various other persons succeeded to get their names recorded in revenue records and said fraudulent entries are liable to expugned and the land should be declared as belonging to ''Government' - Petitioner has referred to various revenue records and has tried to impress Court that private persons have usurped the Government land - Whether against the impugned order dated passed by Commissioner, State has filed any writ petition or not - Answer to the said query was that nobody was aware about filing of the writ petition by the State- [Para 18]
Finding of Court : Once original relief claimed in proceedings under Sections 33/39/225 of Act-1901 was to make a declaration of land covered by Gata Nos.329 and 330 as "Government Land" and Government has acquised to merits of impugned orders passed by Commissioner, on one hand by not challenging same despite dismissal of its revision and, on other hand, by taking a clear stand in counter affidavit that orders impugned are perfectly in accordance with law which do not call for any interference and that rights in aforesaid land have been settled in favour of private persons on basis of judicial/statutory proceedings, Court does not find any good ground to entertain the claim made by stranger (petitioner), particularly, when absolutely no disclosure about petitioner's personal grievance has been made either in the entire writ petition or in the pleadings exchanged between parties.- Court is of considered view that this is not a fit case where any of exceptions stands attracted requiring interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, particularly, when main party to be aggrieved by impugned orders or by nature of relief claimed in original proceedings under Sections 33/39 of Act-1901 is ''State of U.P' which, on one hand, has not challenged impugned orders and, on other hand, has acquised to orders impugned by terming them as based upon documentary evidence and perfectly, in accordance with law.
Result : Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Brahmanand Pandey, the petitioner who has appeared in-person, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Anand Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.5-private respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed by one Brahmanand Pandey S/o Rajmani Pandey, R/o Village-Sasna Vishwanathpur, Police Station-Maharajganj, Pargana Gopalpur, Tehsil-Sagadi, District-Azamgarh who has appeared in-person before this Court.
3 The reliefs claimed in the present writ petition are for quashing of the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate-Azamgarh as well as the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh, Division-Azamgarh.
4. The Collector/District Magistrate, Azamgarh has rejected the case filed by the petitioner under Sections 33/39/225 of U.P. Land Revenue Act-1901 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act-1901') (Brahmanand Pandey v. State of U.P.) vide impugned order dated 25.10.2017 whereas vide impugned order dated 21.10.2020, the Commissioner, Azamgarh, Division Azamgarh has dismissed the revisions filed under Section 219 of the Act-1901.
5. A perusal of record shows that the petitioner filed a case under Sections 33/39/225 of the Act-1901 against the State of U.P. before the Collector/District Magistrate-Azamgarh alleging therein that certain land covered by Gata No.1149 (renumbered as Gata Nos.329 and 330) is recorded in the names of Ram Prakash, Rajpat Pandey and Hari Mohan as their ''bhumidhari' land. The allegations made in the memo of the said application/case are to the effect that various private persons (including the aforesaid) were obtructing the public passage and have succeeded to get wrongful entries made in their names contrary to the revenue/consolidation records. Three prayers were made in the said application/case:-
(1). The Gata Nos.329 and 330 be declared as "parti/Government land";
(2). Any other relief which may be found appropriate in favour of the petitioner be passed;
(3). The cost of litigation be awarded to the petitioner from the opposite party (State).
6. The order of Collector dated 25.10.2017 shows that for the purposes of disposal of the case, reports from Sub Divisional Officer-Sagadi and Settlement Officer of Consolidation were called for and that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, in his report dated 26.11.2015, has mentioned that land covered by Gata No.330 area 0.030 Kari has been recorded in the names of Rajpati and Radhika, heirs of Sadanand vide order dated 12.11.1971 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No.10459 whereas in respect of Gata No.329 measuring 0.015, the aforesaid two names were continuing in the Khatauni since before. The order further indicates that the State and opposite parties were heard whereas nobody was present to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, the allegations levelled by the petitioner were not proved and there were contrary reports in favour of the opposite parties, consequently, the case was dismissed.
7. Challenging the order of Collector/District Magistrate-Azamgarh dated 25.10.2017, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner, Azamgarh, Division-Azamgarh which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2020.
8. The contention of the petitioner is to the effect that the aforesaid land continued to be recorded in the consolidation record as "Government land", however, the respondent no.5 and various other persons succeeded to get their names recorded in the revenue records and, therefore, the said fraudulent entries are liable to the expugned and the land should be declared as belonging to the ''Government'. The petitioner has referred to various revenue records and has tried to impress the Court that the private persons have usurped the Government land.
9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the orders impugned are perfectly in accordance with law, based upon documentary evidence available with the courts below and, th
Point of Law : This is not a fit case where any of the exceptions stands attracted requiring interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not confer title or extinguish rights. The only way to establish title is through a regular suit for declaration.
Mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not confer title; aggrieved parties must seek resolution in civil courts.
Mutation entries do not impact the title of the parties, and orders passed by mutation courts are subject to the result of regular proceedings.
The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies has been held to be a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and existence of an alternate remedy would not divest the High Court of its powers under ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
