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

2004 Supreme(UK) 388

2005 (1) U.D., 235
High Court of Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Karam Chand.
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P., at Luc-know and others
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3880 of 2001 (M/S)
Decided on: 22-12-2004.

Advocates Appeared:
Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sri U.P.S. Negi, Addl. Advocate General for the State.
Sri J.C. Pandey, Advocate for the respondents.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on seeking correction in revenue records and the boundaries prevailing over the area in a land dispute.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Land Dispute - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act, 1950 - Section 331, Article 226, Article 227 - Summary of Acts and Sections: U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act, 1950 - Section 331, Article 226, Article 227 - The court discussed the petitioner's locus standi to file the writ petition, the correction of revenue records based on a civil court decree, and the boundaries prevailing over the area in a land dispute. The court upheld the order recalling the earlier decision and quashed the impugned orders.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash judgments and orders related to a land dispute. The petitioner's father was allotted land, transferred part of it, and later claimed bhumidhar rights. Disputes arose regarding the land area and ownership, leading to legal proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition and that the correction in revenue records could only be sought in respect of the land held as bhumidhar. The court upheld the order recalling the earlier decision and quashed the impugned orders.

Issues: Locus standi of the petitioner, correction of revenue records based on a civil court decree, and the boundaries prevailing over the area in a land dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a land dispute, correction in revenue records could only be sought in respect of the land held as bhumidhar, and the boundaries prevail over the area. The court also emphasized the power of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 to set right grave errors of law or jurisdictional errors causing material injustice.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the order recalling the earlier decision was upheld.

Judgment

By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 25-06-1984, passed by Addl. Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital (respondent no. 2) and judgment and order dated 17-08-1996 passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent no. 1).

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that Shri Shankar Lal (now deceased), father of respondent no. 6 was allotted 248 big has, 14 biswas land by the government and was recorded as hereditary tenant in 1362 fasli. It Is alleged in the petition that out of the allotted land, Shri Shankar Lal transferred 64 big has of land to Bhudan Samiti on 30th November, 1956, and he was ejected from 109 bighas 14 biswas land by the Forest Department as such he remained hereditary tenant in respect of only 75 bighas of land. Later settlement took place and the area got further reduced by one bighas and 5 biswas The petitioner has further alleged that when U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act, 1950 was made applicable in Kumaun Divison w.e.f. 1-07-1969, Shri Shankar Lal became Sirdar in respect of the said remaining land of 73 big has and 15 biswas. On depositing 20 times of land revenue, he became bhumidhar of the same. On 04-01-1971, Shri Shankar Lal transferred entire land of 73 bighas and 15 biswas in favour of Smt. Budha, Smt. Laxmi Bai and Shri Amir Chand. Accordingly, names of Smt. Budha, Smt. Laxmi Bai and Shri Amir Chand was recorded in the revenue records. Petitioner, Shri Karam Chand is son of said trans free, Shri Amir Chand. Shankar Lal filed an original suit no. 4 of 1971 before Learned Munsif, Nainital for the relief of mandatory injunction initially for 77 bigha, which later amended to be 144 bighas of the land. Learned Munsif, Nainital decreed the suit in respect of 144 bighas of land on 27-01-1973. The state of U.P. went In appeal against said order and the appeal (No. 22 of 1973) was allowed by learned II Addl. District Judge, Nainital on 30-04-1976. There after Shri Shankar Lal filed Second Appeal no. 1128 of 1976 before the Allahabad High Court which was decided on 25-04-1979, whereby the second appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was upheld in favour of Shri Shankar Lal. Petitioner's father,(?) Shri Shankar Lal there after applied for recording of his name as bhumidhar in the revenue record before Sub-Divisional Officer, Haldwani, claiming himself to be hereditary tenant of 232 bigha, 8 biswas of land out of 248 bighas, 14 biswas which was allowed vide order dated 15-02-1980. However, Peshkar submitted a report on 06-08-1980, whereby it was mentioned that material facts were concealed by Shri Ramesh Chandra (son of Shankar Lal) as to the area of land held by him on which the Sub-Divisional Officer, vide his order dated 31-05-1983, recalled his earlier order dated 15-02-1980, after hearing the respondent no. 6 (Ramesh Chandra). Aggrieved by said order, Shri Ramesh Chandra filed a revision no. 10/151 of 1982-83 before the Commissioner, which was decided by the learned Addl. Commissioner recommending revision to the Board of Revenue on 25-06-1984 for setting aside order dated 31-05-1983. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision of respondent no. 6, Ramesh Chandra Sharma against which the present writ petition has been filed by the petition

3. On behalf of the State of U.P., a counter affidavit was filed in which it was admitted that initially 248 bigha 14 biswa was allotted to Shri Shankar Lal. It is also admitted on behalf of the government that out of said land, 64 bigha was gifted to Acharya Vinoba Bhave. It is not disputed in the counter affidavit that a suit was filed by the father of respondent no. 6 before Munsif, Nainital which was confirmed by the High Court in the second appeal. But simultaneously, it is stated that Shankar Lal did transfer 73 bigha 15 biswa of land by way of sale deed and was ejected









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

AI

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