Proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary and cannot decide disputed title. Revisional Court's jurisdiction limited to issues raised before Assistant Collector. Disputed title not within scope of correction of Annual Register.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.07.2017 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class (Sadar), Dehradun, in summary proceedings, under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. He is also challenging the judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed by Commissioner, Garhwal Division, whereby his revision, challenging the order passed by Assistant Collector, was dismissed.

2. It transpires that respondent nos. 1 to 6 moved an application, under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, contending that their forefathers were joint tenure holders in respect of land in question, however, after the Fasli Year 1373, names of their forefathers have been omitted from the Annual Register, therefore, the Annual Register be corrected. The said application made by the private respondents was allowed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class on a report submitted by the concerned Lekhpal (Revenue Inspector). Petitioner, who was not party to the proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, filed a revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, contending that the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh had acquired land comprised in Village Rangadwala and Village Mitthibedi, Pargana Pachwadoon and, out of the land so acquired, 10 acre land was allotted to the petitioner for running D.A.V. Inter College and he was a necessary party to the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Act. Before the Revisional Court, private respondents contended that the revision filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as he was not a party to the proceedings before Assistant Collector and he did not move any application seeking his impleadment. It was further contended that although petitioner contends that he was allotted a piece of land by the State Government; but, no document has been produced by him in support of his claim.

3. Learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 21.09.2017, by holding that petitioner was not party to the proceedings pending before the Assistant Collector and he did not file any application seeking his impleadment in the said proceedings. It was further held that petitioner could have filed application for seeking recall of the order dated 24.07.2017, if it was an ex-parte order. The Revisional Court further held that petitioner has not been able to place any material on record, in support of his claim, regarding title over the subject land, however, while dismissing petitioners revision, Revisional Court granted him liberty to approach learned Assistant Collector seeking recall of the order and also for seeking his impleadment in the proceedings.

4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.11.2017 had directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue to conduct enquiry, as to whether the procedure, prescribed under Section 33 (4) of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, was followed or not by the Assistant Collector while deciding the application filed by private respondents.

5. A compliance affidavit has been filed by Mr. Harbans Singh Chugh, In-Charge Secretary, Revenue. Alongwith compliance affidavit, an order passed by In-Charge Secretary, Revenue on 21.12.2017 has been enclosed. Perusal of the said order indicates that Secretary, Revenue has given clean chit to Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Dehradun and has held that there is no procedural lapse in the matter. Petitioner has not filed any objection to the compliance affidavit filed by In-Charge Secretary, Revenue.

6. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Learned Revisional Court has discussed the matter in great detail and has given valid reasons for dismissing petitioner's revision filed under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act. Learned Revisional Court has noted the submission made on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6 that petitioner was not affected by partition of the country, therefore, he is not a refugee as such his claim that he was allotted land by the Relief & Rehab