The Collector exceeded jurisdiction by re-examining land records and issuing a new order without due process, violating the finality of the Commissioner's order.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri M.G. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the Collector, Gonda thereby complying with the directions of this Court dated 16.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 24381 (MB) of 2019 where it was directed that representation of the petitioner dated 24.09.2018 be decided within a time provided by this Court.

3. The dispute arisen in the present case has arisen on passing of the order passed by the Lekhpal on 22.06.1994 where it stated that Triveni S/o Tulsi Sonar died without any legal heir and accordingly the land vested in the State Government and a proclamation in this regard issued by the Tehsildar inviting objections.

4. Mahadeo Prasad S/o Surya Kant appeared and contested the said notice on the basis of a will executed by Triveni. Considering the aforesaid will, mutation orders were passed in favour of Mahadeo Prasad on 22.06.1994 which attained finality and was not assailed by any time thereafter. The name of Mahadeo Prasad continued to be entered in the revenue records till a complaint was made before the Collector on 28.08.1995 stating that the entry made in favour of Mahadeo Prasad was collusive and fictitious and accordingly the said entry should be deleted.

5. The Collector, Gonda on the basis of aforesaid complaint got the matter investigated and obtained a report from the Tehsildar, Tulsipur who submitted a report and on the basis of said report, an order 27.10.1995 was passed deleting the name of Mahadeo Prasad from the revenue records. No notice or opportunity of hearing was given to Mahadeo Prasad and accordingly against the order dated 27.10.1995 an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad. Initially the order of the Collector dated 27.10.1995 was stayed by means of order dated 08.04.1996.

6. In the meanwhile, one Mangal Prasad and Durga Prasad had filed a suit under Section 229 B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act claiming themselves to be the owners of the said land in which the name of the petitioner had been mutated. The said suit was dismissed on 02.06.2009 and against the said order, no appeal was filed and the same attained finality. It has further been submitted that Mangal Prasad S/o Thakur Prasad died on 06.08.2010. The Additional Commissioner, Faizabad finally decided the appeal of the petitioner by means of order dated 27.10.2009 and he held that against the order under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act where the name of the individual has been mutated on the basis of a will, such an order can be challenged only in an appeal before the higher authority and not by an application under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Code.

7. Accordingly, the appellate authority held that the Collector did not have any jurisdiction interfere in the order passed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and accordingly quashed the order passed by the Collector dated 27.10.1995. Despite the order of the Commissioner dated 27.10.2009 setting aside the order dated 27.10.1995, the revenue records were not corrected despite repeated representations given by the petitioner and still continued to be recorded as Naveen Parti.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being Writ Petition No. 24381 of 2019 where this Court by means of order dated 16.09.2019 directed the District Magistrate to take a decision on the representation /application submitted by the petitioner petitioner on 24.09.2018 within a period of two months from the date of receiving of a certified copy of said order.

9. Despite the order having been passed by this Court no decision was taken by the Collector and accordingly a contempt petition being was preferred before this