SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(UK) 370

2008 UAD 990
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma
Writ Petition No. 1368 of 2001 (M/S)
SHRI BASANT COLLECTIVE AGRICULTURAL FARMING
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 18.08.2008

Advocates:
For the Appellant :Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder

Headnote:(A) U.P. Land Record Manual, Para 87 — The name of the Petitioner entered as trespasser of the land in dispute i.e. Column 6 of Khasra of 1374 Fasli — On the grounds that PA24, not issued, entry was disbelieved — On 01.07.1969, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force in the area — Held that since the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was not applicable in the area in 1374 Fasli, which corresponds to the year 1966 — The question of issuance of PA24 didnot arise — As, the Chapter A-V of the Land Record Manual, which contains paras A-80, 81 and 81A, providing for issue of PA24, is applicable only to the areas, in which the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is applicable — The area in question, where the said Act was not applicable, entry of possession in Khasra was to be made in accordance with Chapter V of the Land Record Manual and since under para 87(i)(e), para 87(ii) and 87(iii) of the Land Record Manual, name of the occupier without the consent of the person, whose name is entered in Column 5 of the Khasra, has to be recorded in Column 6 — Thereof, in view of para 87 of the Land Record Manual, entry of the petitioner's name in Column 6 was correct. (Paras 20, 25, 27)

       (B) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, Secs. 131, 209, U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, Appendix III, Sr. No. 30, Clauses (i) to (iii); U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, Sec. 180(2); U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961, Sec. 10(2) — Petitioner's name had been recorded in Khasra as occupier from the year 1374 Fasli — The land in dispute declared surplus as holding of the original tenure holder — Petitioner filed objections before the Prescirbed Authority that he had been in possession of the land in dispute from the year 1374, and had acquired Bhumidhari rights — Aggrieved by the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition — It was held that no suit for eviction of the petitioner had been filed by the original tenure holder under the U.P. Tenancy Act or under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act — Hence, petitioner had perfected his rights as hereditary tenant under the U.P. Tenancy Act and as Sirdar under U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act Sec. 131 and subsequently as Bhumidhari in 1977 with transferable rights, by operation of law — The impugned orders, accordingly set aside. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 36, 38)

       ¼v½ mdizd Hkw&vfHkys[k eSuqvy iSjk&87 & iSfV'uj dk uke fookfnr Hkwfe esa vfrde.kdrkZ ds :i esa ntZ Fkk vFkkZr 1374 Qlyh ds [kljs ds [kkuk 6 esa izfof"V dh xbZ Fkh & bl vk/kkj ij fd PA24 fuxZr ugha gqvk ml izfof"V dks vfo'oluh; ekuk x;k & fnukad 1-7-1969 dks mRrj izns'k t+ehankjh [kkfrek vkSj Hkwfe lq/kkj vf/kfu;e ml {ks= esa ykxw gks x;k & ;g fu.kZ; fn;k x;k] ih MCY;w afd o"kZ 1966 vFkkZr 1374 Qlyh esa U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act ykxw ugha Fkk rks PA24 ds fuxZr fd;s tkus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk & tSlk fd Hkwfe vfHkys[k eSuqvy ds v/;k; A-V ftl esa iSjk A-80, 81 vkSj 81-A fufgr gS ftuesa PA24 ds fuxZr fd;s tkus ds fo"k; esa dgk x;k gS fd ;g mu {ks=ksa esa ykxw gksxk tgk¡ ij U.P.Z.A. Act ykxw gS & iz'uxr {ks= tgk¡ ij U.P.Z.A. Act ykxw gh ugha gksrk ogk¡ ij [kljs esa dCts dh izfof"V Hkw&vfHkys[k eSuqvy ds v/;k; V ds vuqlkj dh tkuh Fkh & vkSj ih MCY;w afd iSjk 87(i)(e) iSjk 87(ii) vkSj 87(iii) Hkw&vfHkys[k eSuqvy ds dkye 5 esa ftl O;fDr dh jtkeanh ds fcuk mldk uke ntZ gS mlh dks dkye 6 esa Hkh ntZ fd;k tkuk pkfg, & blfy, Hkw&vfHkys[k eSuqvy ds iSjk 87 ds vuqlkj iSfV'uj ds uke dh izfof"V dkye 6 esa lgh ikbZ xbZA ¼izLrj 20] 25] 27½

       ¼c½ U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950] /kkjk&131] 209] U.P.Z.A. & L.R. fu;ekoyh] 1952 ifjf'k"V III dekad 30 okD;ka'k (i) ls (iii) rd U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 èkkjk&180¼2½] ;w-ih- bEiksft'ku vkQ lhfyax vku ySaM gksfYMaXl] 1961] /kkjk&10¼2½ & iSfV'uj dk uke 1374 Qlyh ls [kljs esa dCtsnkj dh gSfl;r ls ntZ Fkk & fookfnr Hkwfe dks ewy Hkwfenkj ls vfrfjDr Hkwfe ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k & iSfV'uj }kjk fu;r vfèkdkjh ds lEeq[k ;g vkifRr nk;j dh xbZ fd og 1374 Qlyh ls fookfnr Hkwfe ij dkfct pyk vk jgk Fkk vkSj mlds }kjk Hkwfe/kj ds vf/kdkj izkIr dj fy;s x;s gSa fu;r vf/kdkjh vkSj vihyh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa ls {kqC/k gksdj iSfV'uj }kjk fjV ;kfpdk nk;j dh xbZ & bl fjV ds fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k ih MCY;w afd ewy Hkw&Lokeh }kjk iSfV'uj dh csn[kyh dk dksbZ okn U.P. Tenancy Act ds varxZr nk;j ugha fd;k x;k Fkk uk gh U.P.Z.A. Act ds varxZr okn nk;j fd;k x;k vr% iSfV'uj }kjk U.P. Tenancy Act ds varxZr iSf=d fdjk;snkj dh gSfl;r ls vius vf/kdkj izkIr dj fy;s gSa rFkk U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act dh /kkjk&131 ds vuqlkj lhjnkjh ds vf/kdkj izkIr dj fy;s gSa vkSj varr% 1977 esa og Hkwfe/kj cu x;k vkSj fof/k ds vuqlkj mls varj.k ds vf/kdkj Hkh fey x;s & iz'uxr vkns'kksa dks rnuqlkj jn~n dj fn;k x;kA

        ¼izLrj 2] 3] 4] 5] 6] 36] 38½

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 6.4.1983 and 22.2.1980 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act since the year 1959 and is covered by Section 77(1)(b) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965 and is exempt from the purview of the ceiling law. The petitioner society is in possession of plot no. 14/4, measuring 97 Bighas in village Madhaiya Bakshi, Tahsil Bazpur, district Nainital, for the last more than twenty years and has become Bhumidhar of the same by adverse possession. The original tenure holder of the aforesaid plot was Shri Amar Nath Jaitley, respondent no. 4 (since deceased), but the petitioner society has acquired Bhumidhari rights over the same by adverse possession. Notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to said Amar Nath Jaitley-respondent no. 4. According to the petitioner, by order dated 30.8.1978, certain land of respondent no. 4 including 50 Bighas, 13 Biswa of plot no. 14/4, of the said village was declared as surplus vacant land. An appeal was filed against the order dated 30.8.1978 and the appellate court by order dated 2.11.1979 declared land measuring 391 Bighas 11 Biswa in terms of the irrigated land including 50 Bighas, 13 Biswa unirrigated land of the aforesaid plot no. 14/4 as surplus land out of the holding of respondent no. 4.

3. The petitioner filed objections before the Prescribed Authority-respondent no. 3 that the petitioner is in possession of 97 Bighas land of plot no. 14/4 for the last twenty years and had acquired Bhumidhari rights by adverse possession. As such the land of the aforesaid plot could not be treated as the holding of respondent no. 4 and could not be declared as surplus land. A copy of the objections has been annexed as Annexure No. 1. It has been stated in paragraph no. 10 of the memo of writ petition that the petitioner in support of its contention filed a copy of Khasra of village Madhaiya Bakshi, Tahsil Bazpur, district Nainital for the year 1374 Fasli to 1384 Fasli. The petitioner also examined the President of the petitioner society and the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Bandwara, while the State examined Sri Shri Ram Registrar Qanungo Bazpur.

4. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 22.2.1980 dismissed the objection of the petitioner on the ground that no evidentiary value could be attached to the Khasra records as the same were not prepared in accordance with the provisions of Land Record Manual. It was observed by the Prescribed Authority that in the Khasra of 1374 Fasli, the first entry of possession of the petitioner had not been recorded in accordance with provisions of Land Records Manual and the entry did not disclose that Form PA-10 was ever issued. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Additional District Judge, Nainital. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal to the extent of 2 Bighas, 3 Biswa vide judgment dated 17.11.1980. However, the appellate court did not accept the contention of the petitioner and observed that the Khasra records were not prepared in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual.

5. The appellate court observed that the Khasra entry of 1374 Fasli did not show the fact as to the issuance of Form PA-10 at the time of initial entry of the name of the petitioner in the Khasra record and as such no evidentiary value could be attached to the Khasra records as the same had not been prepared in accordance with paragraphs A-80 and A-81 of the Land Records Manual.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate court, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 1898 of 1981 before the Allahabad High Court, which was allowed vide






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top