IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Nand Kishore - Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur And 4 Others - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 262 OF 2024.
Decided On : 09-04-2024
JUDGMENT
Manish Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the appellate order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2-Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sultanpur and the impugned revisional order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 i.e. Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted patta of the land of Gata No. 384, 386 & 387 Minzumla by the Land Management Committee on 30.06.1963 as the grandfather of the petitioner late Harpal was in possession of the said land as grove and over the said land, thirty three trees were standing, which were planted by them and since then the petitioner is in the possession.
4. It is further submitted that the Consolidation Officer had passed an order on 17.11.2012 in case No. 2256 and it was wrongly directed to record the name in khata No. 293 on Gata No. 384 minzumla admeasuring 0.09 hectare and Gata No. 387 admeasuring 0.013 hectare. The order was thereafter modified by the Consolidation Officer on the application of the petitioner that the land of Gata no. 293 has been wrongly recorded in category-IV.
5. It is further submitted that the application of Gram Sabha for recall of the order and restoration of Gata number in the name of Gram Sabha was allowed by order dated 12.09.2017 and in pursuance thereof, the entry has been made in the revenue records in favour of Gram Sabha on 24.05.2019.
6. It is further submitted that after recording the land of petitioner in favour of Gram Sabha, the petitioner has preferred a revision under Section 48 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.12.2023.
7. It is further submitted that revisional authority without considering the order of the Consolidation Officer has passed the impugned revisional order depriving the petitioner from his lawful claim ignoring completely that the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1963.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gram Sabha have submitted that there is an over-writing and cutting on the lease/patta alleged to be issued in the year 1963 produced by the petitioner at the revisional stage just for the purpose that prior to the year 1969, there was no requirement of prior approval by the Sub Divisional Magistrate for grant of patta under Section 195 and after 1969, without prior approval of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the patta cannot be granted that is why, the cutting has been made otherwise it appears that the alleged patta was granted in the year 1970, if at all, it was granted in favour of the petitioner.
9. It has also been pointed out that in the present petition age of petitioner is mentioned as 66 years, then, he would have been about 6 years i.e. minor in the year 1963 when the alleged patta was granted in his favour and patta cannot be granted in favour of a minor.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that that appellate and revisional authority had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue record on Gata No. 384 & 387 in khata no. 293 by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.02.2013 on the basis of patta granted in his favour but no date of allotment of patta in favour of the petitioner has been mentioned in the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.02.2013 and the khasra Bandobasht Doyam and copy of Khasra Bandobasht Awwal was perused wherein it was found that in the khata No. 293 the name of the revisionist/petitioner is entered on the land which comes under Category IV and the order has been passed by the Consolidation Officer on 12.09.2017 to enter the land in favour of Gram Sabha and
A patta cannot be granted to a minor, and the validity of the patta was questioned due to overwriting and lack of credible evidence.
Rejecting title of on trees and boring well - land in dispute belongs to Gram Samaj therefore even if the orders passed by the lower authorities were not sustainable and quashed, no fruitful purpose ....
The Collector lacks jurisdiction to alter land mutations based on overruled amendments; disputes over land rights must be resolved through civil suits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the Settlement Officer's order reached finality, issuing Patta for the same land on different grounds is not sustainable in the eye of la....
Delay of 10 years in filing a writ petition justified dismissal, emphasizing the importance of timely action in legal proceedings.
In the case of an ancestral property, the allotment of Patta should not be done in favor of one party unless it is established that all other parties have relinquished their rights or there is no dis....
The cancellation of 'pattas' should be in accordance with Rule 266, and the decision should be reasoned and speaking.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate ownership through authentic records, while the State's maintained records hold prevailing authority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.