Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 489
2006 (2) U.D., 354
High Court of Uttaranchal
Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J.
Dhaluwalal Kushta Sewa Samiti - Petitioner
Vs.
Board of Revenue and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 78 of 2000 (MS),
decided on 31-08-2006.
Sri U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Sobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sri Lokendra Dobhal and Sri K.N. Joshi, Advocates for the respondent no. 4.
Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3.
Possession and rights transformation under the Kumaon Garhwal Zamindari Abolition Act were crucial in establishing ownership rights over the disputed land.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Section 229-B, Section 180(2), Section 122(B), Kumaon Garhwal Zamindari Abolition Act - [Section 229-B, Section 180(2), Section 122(B)] - The court discussed the ownership rights over the disputed land, the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, and the Kumaon Garhwal Zamindari Abolition Act. It emphasized the importance of possession, rights transformation under the Kumaon Garhwal Zamindari Abolition Act, and the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order regarding ownership of disputed land under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The respondent claimed ownership based on possession and rights transformation under the Kumaon Garhwal Zamindari Abolition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had established possession and rights transformation, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact.
Issues: Ownership rights under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, rights transformation under the Kumaon Garhwal Zamindari Abolition Act, and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent's possession and rights transformation were crucial in establishing ownership, and the High Court's jurisdiction was limited to ensuring the subordinate court functioned within its authority.
Final Decision: The writ petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8-9-2000passed by the respondents no. 1.
3. Briefly stated Sri Bachan Singh maternal uncle of respondent no. 4 filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, for declaration of his ownership over Bhumidhari Khasra No. 1/13 area 16 Nali 14 Muthi land. During the pendency of the case Bachan Singh expired and the respondent no. 4 Bhag Singh was substituted in place of his maternal uncle. According to the petitioner he is in actual physical possession since 1949 and his name was also entered in the revenue record in Varg-5. In the year 1969 the Kumaon and Garhwal Zamindari Abolition Act, came into existence in District Tehri Garhwal and as per provision of Section 10 of Kumaon Garhwal ZamindariAbolition Act, the persons, who were Sirdar prior to 30-6-1969, have become Asami after 30-6-1969 and as per provisions of section 36 of the K.zA Act. The Assistant Collector, Narendra Nagar by its order dated 25-11-1992 dismissed the suit against which respondent no. 4 file an appeal, which was decided vide order dated 308-1993 and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for deciding it afresh. Thereafter the trial court dismissed the suit ex parte vide order dated 25-2-1994. The respondent no. 4 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division who vide order dated 20-6-1995 dismissed the same. Respondent no. 4 filed the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, who allowed the same vide order dated 8-9-2000.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Second appeal, present writ petition has been filed.
5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and have alleged that Bachan Singh maternal uncle of respondent no. 4 was in possession over the disputed land since 1940 and in accordance with the provisions of section 180 (2) of U.P. Tenancy Act, he has become Bhumidhar over the land in dispute. As per notification dated 16-2-1981, the respondent no. 4 is entitled to be regularized over the land in dispute and he comes in the class of landless agricultural labourer. Patwari concerned, in proceedings under Section 122 (B) of U.PLA. & L.R. Act has stated that Bachan Singh maternal uncle of respondent no. 4 was in possession over the land in dispute since 1940. Other witnesses Dhum Singh and Bachan Singh have also stated in their statement that the respondent no. 4 is in possession over the land in dispute prior to the year 1958.
6. Bachan Singh who was the maternal uncle of respondent no. 4 was the Sirtan of the land in question according to the laws relating to the land holdings in the erstwhile Tehri Garhwal State. He was regularly paying rent of the land to the Malgujar Sri Jappa Singh. On 17-1969 due to operation of Kumaon Zamindari Abolition Act, Sri Bachan Singh has become Sirtan and on 28-1-1977 he became Bhumidhar. Bachan Singh was in possession over the disputed land since 1940. There is colony for the persons suffering with leprosy but that colony has no concerned with the land of Bachan Singh.
7. In the suit under section 122-B of U.P. ZA & L.R. Act, Patwari of the region admitted that Bachan Singh was in possession over the land in dispute since 1940. Respondent no. 4 also filed revenue receipts and electricity bills etc. but the trial Court has not considered the evidence adduced by the respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 also filed money order receipts which he has sent to Jappa Singh, Malguzar.
8. Plaintiff respondent no. 4 was having possession over the land in dispute before operation of the Kumaon Zamindari Abolition Act. He got Sirdari rights in 1969 and on 28-11977 he became Bhumidhar. Respondent no. 4 has not claimed any relief against the petitione
