Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Smt. Balwinder Kaur and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 2295, 2287, 2290, 2643, 2644, 2641 of 2016 (M/S)
Decided On : 20-12-2017
For the Petitioners:Mr. Pradeep Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. C.K. Sharma, Ms. Soniya Chawla and Mr. Divyanshu Sahay.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sunil Khera, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Lalit Sharma.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive authority of the Collector for cancellation of patta under the Land Revenue Act, and the requirement for strict adherence to the principle of natural justice and independent decision-making by the Collector.
Headnote:
Land Revenue Act - Patta Cancellation - Section 129, Section 133-A, Section 198(4) - The judgment dealt with the controversy of patta cancellation under the Land Revenue Act. The court analyzed the legal provisions under Section 129, Section 133-A, and Section 198(4) and highlighted the authority vested in the Collector for cancellation of patta. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the principle of natural justice and independent decision-making by the Collector.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief to quash the order cancelling the patta granted under the Government Grants Act. The controversy arose from the property in dispute, which was covered by the impugned order dated 12th July, 2016, involving land lying in Plot No. 66-N, 66, 69, 70, 110-N and 71-N, in village Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioners claimed entitlement to be categorized as Shreni-4 class tenure holder under the Land Revenue Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of patta by the Additional Collector, who was not competent under the law, was invalid. The court remitted the matter back to the Collector to decide the issue afresh, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the principle of natural justice and independent decision-making. The court also directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the property until the matter is decided afresh.
Issues: The core issue was the competence of the Collector to cancel the lease, and whether the cancellation by the Additional Collector was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of cancellation of lease was vested with the Collector under the Land Revenue Act. It emphasized the need for strict adherence to the principle of natural justice and independent decision-making by the Collector.
Final Decision: The impugned order of cancellation of patta was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Collector to decide the issue afresh within a period of six months. The parties were directed to maintain status quo in relation to the property until the matter is decided afresh.
JUDGMENT :
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
1. This judgment would be deciding the controversy which is identically involved in all the Writ Petitions (M/S) Nos. 2290 of 2016, 2287 of 2016, 2643 of 2016, 2295 of 2016, 2644 of 2016 and 2641 of 2016. For the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 2295 of 2016 (M/S) are taken into consideration as to be leading case. The petitioners of the Writ Petition No. 2295 of 2016 (M/S) have sought the following reliefs :
“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the opposite party No.4, Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Udham Singh Nagar dated 12.07.2016 in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2015-16 as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, dated 18.06.2016, report submitted by the Joint Director, Uttarakhand dated 25.05.2016 as well as the order passed on the complaint dated 30.04.2016 by Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital to make enquiry contained in Annexure No.1 to 4 to this writ petition.
(ii) to pass such other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems it fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iii) to allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioners.”
2. For dealing with the controversy, the factual backdrop, under which, this writ petition has reached to this stage, is necessarily required to be dealt with.
3. The property, in dispute, which is a subject matter of controversy, are the property which are covered by the impugned order dated 12th July, 2016, i.e. the order of cancellation of patta alleged to have been granted to petitioners under the Government Grants Act, it constitutes as a land lying in Plot No. 66-N, 66, 69, 70, 110-N and 71-N, lying in khata No. 4 of village Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. The aforesaid land had the following areas recorded in the revenue record. For example, khasra No. 66 was having 23 bigha and 17 biswas, khasra No. 69, having 31 bigha, 16 biswas, khasra No. 70, having 82 bigha, 2 biswas khasra No. 71-N, having area of 2 bigha and 3 biswas and khasra 110-N, having area of two bigha and 8 biswas, which at the relevant time, i.e. in 1375 fasli, all khasra as detailed above, were recorded with in the name of one Mr. Harnam Singh in Shreni-10 ka.
4. According to the petitioners, the said revenue entry in the name of Harnam Singh continued to prevail even prior to 1375 fasli and it continued till 1383 fasli, yet again recorded in Shreni-10 ka, as defined under the Land Revenue Act. It is the case of the petitioners that though the land was recorded in Shreni 10-ka, which according to the petitioners own showing has been defined in para 124 of the Land Record Maunal which reads as under :
^^¼10&d½ fcuk vkxe ds Hkwfe;ksa ds v/;klhu (occupiers) tc fd [kljs ds LrEHk 5 esa igys ls fdlh O;fDr dk uke fyf[kr u gksA
fVIi.kh& tc dksbZ yxku fuf'pr u fd;k x;k gks vkSj fdlh ,sls O;fDr }kjk ftls Hkwfe ij dCtk nsus ;k dCtk cuk;s j[kus dh vuqefr nsus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gks] fdlh O;fDr dks bl vfHkizk; ls Hkwfe ij dCtk fn;k x;k gS ;k dCtk cuk;s j[kus dh vuqefr ns nh gks fd mlds vk/kj ij dk'rdkjh dh lafonk ;k Bsdk (Contract of tenancy) gks tk;s] rks ,slk O;fDr ekS:lh dk'rdkj gksxk vkSj mldk mi;qDr LFkku oxZ ¼8½ esa gksxkA fdUrq fdlh ,sls O;fDr dks tks bl izdkj dk dk'rdkj gksus dk nkok djrk gs] ekS:lh dk'rdkj ds :i esa fy[kus ds iwoZ ys[kiky] tehankj vkSj ,sls O;fDr ds oDrO; viuh nSfudh esa fy[ksxk vkSj mu ij muds gLrk{kj djk;sxk vkSj rc dsoy mlh n'kk esa oxZ ¼8½ esa vUnjkt djsxk tc ml lEcU/k esa dksbZ fookn u gksA ;fn tehankj ,sls O;fDr dks fn;k gqvk dk'rdkjh dk vf/kdkj ;k ,sls O;fDr dks dk'rdkj ekuuk Lohdkj u djs rks ,sls O;fDr dk bUnjk oxZ ¼10&d½ esa d;k tk;sxkA**
5. It means a land which a person has occupied without title when in column no. 5 of the khasra does not record the name of any person against it.
6. As per the case revealed from records before this Court, Mr. Hernam Singh is said to have executed a sale deed on 10th Decem
