Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Kishni Devi and others - Petitioners
Versus
Mohan Chandra and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1268 (M/S) of 2006
Decided On : 29-06-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.S. Pal, Mr. D.S. Mehta
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C. Arya, Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Mr. Naveen Tiwari
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, particularly the provisions related to vesting, limitation for filing suits for ejectment, and the consequences of not filing within the specified period.
Headnote:
Zamindari Abolition - Land Dispute - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 229, Section 10, Section 209, Section 210 - The court discussed the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, particularly Section 10(2)(vi), Section 209, and Section 210, and their application in the case. The court highlighted the concept of vesting, the limitation for filing suits for ejectment, and the consequences of not filing within the specified period, leading to the extinguishment of rights and the acquisition of rights by the occupant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents, alleging that the entry in khatauni for the land was wrongly made in the name of the respondent. The petitioner claimed that the respondent's name was inserted in the documents in connivance with revenue authorities. The petitioner argued that the lower courts ignored the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the evidence on record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's name was recorded in the revenue records prior to the vesting date, and no suit for eviction was filed within the specified period. The court concluded that the respondent had perfected his rights by adverse possession, and the rights of the petitioner as bhumidhar were extinguished.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the entry in khatauni, the application of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, and the failure to file a suit for eviction within the specified period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, particularly Section 10(2)(vi), Section 209, and Section 210, to determine the rights of the parties involved. The court emphasized the concept of vesting, the limitation for filing suits for ejectment, and the consequences of not filing within the specified period.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek to set aside/quash the impugned judgments and orders dated 30.11.1999, 30.10.2004 and 04.08.2006 (Annexure nos. 9, 10 and 11 to the petition).
2. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by judgment and order dated 04.08.2006 (Annexure no. 1 to the petition), passed by respondent no. 5 in appeal no. 293/2004-05.
3. Brief facts, in the background of the present writ petition, may be stated as follows:
(a) The petitioner filed a suit no. 22/126 year 1983-84 (Annexure no. 2 to the petition) against respondent nos. 1 and 2. Respondent no. 4, vide order dated 12.08.1985, dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner (Annexure no. 3 to the petition).
(b) Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who remanded the matter back to respondent no. 4 (Sub Divisional Magistrate), vide order dated 07.06.1988 (Annexure no. 4 to the petition).
(c) Respondent no. 4 once again, vide order dated 15.07.1992 (Annexure no. 5 to the petition), dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Petitioner was again compelled to file appeal against the order impugned before Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), who vide order dated 22.12.1993 (Annexure no. 6 to the petition), allowed the appeal and remanded the matter before the court below.
(d) Learned trial court once again dismissed the suit of the petitioner, vide order dated 08.07.1994 (Annexure no. 7 to the petition). Once again, an appeal was preferred and again the matter was remanded back to the trial court, vide order dated 30.12.1995 (Annexure no. 8 to the petition). Trial court dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide order dated 30.11.1998 (Annexure no. 9 to the petition).
(e) Appeal was preferred before the Addl. Commissioner, Kumaon Region. Said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2004 (Annexure no. 10 to the petition). Petitioner preferred appeal before respondent no. 6.
(f) There was specific allegation of the petitioner that entry in khatauni for the year 1400-1405 Fasli was wrongly made in the name of Gopal Dutt. It was also averred that petitioner was posted in the Indian Army and in his absence the name of the respondent could not be inserted by deleting the name of the petitioner. Petitioner produced certified copy of the khatauni for the Fasli year 1383-1388 before the court below in which name of the petitioner was indicated (Annexure no. 11 to the petition). Petitioner also submitted copy of khatauni in which the name of respondent was inserted after deleting the name of the petitioner (Annexure no. 12 to the petition).
4. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the entry was made in the documents in connivance with revenue authorities, therefore, the order impugned should be set aside.
5. The judgment rendered by Assistant Collector, I Class/S.D.M. Nainital on 30.11.1998 between Chaninath and Gopal Dutt in revenue suit no. 22/23 year 1997-98, delineates the entire facts as to how Gopal Dutt (respondent herein) was recorded as bhumidhar in land in dispute. It was a suit under Section 229 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This Court need not reproduce entire facts and the reasoning leading to dismissal of suit filed by Chaninath against Gopal Dutt and others.
6. The submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are as follows:
(i) The husband of the petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 to 6 (late Chaninath) was recorded bhumidhar of class 1(ka) of khasra no. 118, 119, 125, 126 and 129 in village Nandpur.
(ii) Late Chaninath was in Indian Army from 1663 to 1982 so he let the said land to Gopal Dutt, father of respondent no. 1, according to provisions contained under Section 157 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
(iii) Learned lower courts dismissed the suit as well as appeal against the provisions of Section 10 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
(iv) Late Chaninath was recorded bhumidhar of class 1(ka) in said land in dispute, so entry of late Gopal Dutt and responde
