Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 87
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Kishori & another - Petitioners
Vs
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 330 of 2011
Decided On : 20-02-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vinod Nautiyrl, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate
The main legal point established is that proceedings under Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and Rule 26(1) of the Rules of 1978 are summary in nature and are not meant to decide title disputes between individuals.
Headnote:
Land Revenue Act - Title Dispute - Section 54 of U.P. Land Revenue Act - Rule 26(1) of Rules of 1978 - [54, 26(1)] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and Rule 26(1) of the Rules of 1978, emphasizing that the proceedings under these provisions are summary in nature and are not meant to decide title disputes between individuals.
Fact of the Case:
The petition arose from proceedings under Rule 26(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue (Survey and Record Operation) Rules, 1978, and Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. The dispute involved the entry of a name in revenue records and inheritance of land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings under Section 54 and Rule 26(1) are not meant to decide title disputes and that the petitioners had lost from all forums. The court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the entry of a name in revenue records, inheritance of land, and the applicability of Section 54 and Rule 26(1) in deciding title disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings under Section 54 and Rule 26(1) are summary in nature and are not meant to decide title disputes between individuals. The court also declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were given the option to seek declaration of their rights in a competent court of law.
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings under Rule 26(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue (Survey and Record Operation) Rules, 1978 (in short ‘Rules of 1978’) read with Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is extracted below:-
“[54. Undisputed entries and disposal of disputes regarding entries, by Record Officer - (1) For revising the map and records under this Chapter, the Record Officer shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, cause to be carried out survey, map correction, field to field Partal and test and verification of current annual register in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
(2) After the test and verification of the current annual register in accordance with sub-section (1), the Naib-Tahsildar shall correct clerical mistakes and errors, if any, in such register, and shall cause to be issued to the concerned tenure-holder and other persons interested, notices containing relevant extracts from the current annual register and such other records as may be prescribed, showing their rights and liabilities in relation to land and mistakes and disputes discovered during the operations mentioned in the said sub-section.
(3) Any person to whom notice under sub-section (2) has been issued may, within twenty-one days of the receipt of notice, file before the Naib-tahsildar objection in respect thereof disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in such records or extracts.
(4) Any person interested in the land may also file objection before the Naib-Tahsildar at any time before the dispute is settled in accordance with sub-section (5), or before the Assistant Record Officer, at any time before the objections are decided in accordance with sub-section (6).
(5) The Naib-Tahsildar shall -
(a) where objections are filed in accordance with sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) after hearing the parties concerned; and
(b) in any other case after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary; correct the mistake, and settle the dispute, by conciliation between the parties appearing before him, and pass orders on the basis of such conciliation.
(6) The record of all cases which cannot be disposed of by the Naib-Tahsildar by conciliation as required by sub-section (5), shall be forwarded to the Assistant Records Officer who shall dispose of the same, in accordance with the provisions of Section 40, 41 or 43, as the case may be, and where the dispute involves a question of title, he shall decide the same after a summary inquiry.
(7) Where after the summary inquiry under sub-section (6), the Assistant Record Officer is satisfied that the land in dispute belongs to the State Government or a local authority, he shall cause the person in unauthorised occupation of such land to be evicted and may, for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary.
(8) Every order of the Assistant Record Officer -
(a) made under sub-section (6) shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 210 and 219, be final;
(b) made under sub-section (7) shall subject to the result of any suit which the aggrieved person may file in any Court of competent jurisdiction, be final].”
2. According to the petitioners, they were four brothers out of which Sri Sudanno and Sri Viswanath have died and only two brothers, namely, Sri Kishore and Sri Punni Charan are alive. Smt. Sumitra (respondent No. 4) was the only child of Sri Sudanno, who died in the year 1996. After his death, survey & record operations, under Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, were initiated in the village (Gram Chandanpur) and name of Smt. Sumitra (respondent No. 4) was entered in revenue records in place of her father Sri Sudanno by Survey Naib Tehsildar, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 01.03.1997.
3. One Sri Sahdev (respondent No. 5), who is the son of petitioner No. 1, filed an appeal against the order passed by Survey Naib Tehs
