Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Singh, J.
Ranjeet Singh @ Hajura Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Jagminder Singh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1668 of 2015 (M/S)
Decided On : 29-07-2015
Land Revenue Act - Correction of Revenue Entries - The court held that correction of the record under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act can be directed if there is no dispute about the possession and entries are altered without there being any order of competent Authority/Court. The question of possession cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and can only be decided under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the Act are summary in nature wherein long-standing entry cannot be permitted to be corrected, particularly when the question of possession is involved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition assailing the rejection of the application for correction of revenue entries under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The petitioner claimed that the respondent's name should be deleted from the revenue record and the petitioner's name should be recorded instead.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the question of possession cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and can only be decided under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The court also noted that proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the Act are summary in nature and long-standing entries cannot be permitted to be corrected, especially when the question of possession is involved.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the application for correction of revenue entries under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the petitioner's claim for deletion of the respondent's name from the revenue record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that correction of the record under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act can be directed if there is no dispute about the possession and entries are altered without there being any order of competent Authority/Court. The question of possession cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and can only be decided under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the Act are summary in nature wherein long-standing entry cannot be permitted to be corrected, particularly when the question of possession is involved.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to file a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or for possession under Section 219 of the Act.
Alok Singh, J.
1. For the reasons stated in the application, supplementary affidavit is taken on record.
2. IA No. 3369 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly.
3. Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 19.06.2015, passed by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand whereby application moved by the petitioner for correction of the revenue entries under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was rejected.
4. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner has moved one application under Section 33/34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act saying that existing khasra No. 2207 (old number 1078M) was never bequeathed in favour of Jagminder Singh nor his name was directed to be mutated over the land of old khasra No. 1078 M; however, near about 2004, name of Jagminder Singh, respondent, herein was entered over the land of khasra No. 2207 (old No. 1078M), therefore, his name should be deleted from the revenue record over the khasra No. 2207 and name of the petitioner should be recorded in the revenue record over the land of khasra No. 2207; application for correction so moved by the petitioner was allowed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Rishikesh, vide order dated 03.014.2014; order dated 03.04.2014 was assailed by the respondent herein in the Revision No. 89 of 2013-14, under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act; revision so filed by the respondent was allowed vide impugned order dated 19.06.2015; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Undisputedly, land of khasra No. 2207 is now part of khata khatuni No. 301. Undisputedly, petitioner is not a co-bhumidhar of khata khatuni No. 301. Correction of the record under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act can be directed if there is no dispute about the possession and entries are altered without there being any order of competent Authority/Court. Since, petitioner’s khata and respondent’s khata are different and petitioner and respondent are not the co-bhumidhar in Khata No. 301 of which Khasra No. 2207 is a part, therefore, question of possession will play an important role and question of possession cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. It can only be decided under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
6. There is another aspect of the matter. Proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the Act are summary in nature wherein long standing entry cannot be permitted to be corrected, particularly, when question of possession is also involved. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
7. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Petitioner, if so advised, may file suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or for possession under Section 219 of the Act wherein source of title as well as question of possession shall be decided without being prejudice from any observation made in the impugned order.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
