Court No. - 30

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3593 of 2023

Petitioner :- Rajendra Gupta

Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Deena Nath,Deepak Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard Mr. D. N. Joshi, Counsel for the petitioner and

learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petiton is

being disposed of finally without inviting counter

affidavit.

The instant writ petition has been filed against the

impugned order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the Up-

Ziladhikari, Bhadohi in Case No.3874 of 2022,

computerized Case No. T202216670503874, under

Section 38(1) of U.P. Revenue Code-2006 pertaining

to Khata No.291 Gata No.262 M area 0.548 hectare

situated in Mauja Rajpura Town, Taluka Chauthar,

Pargana and Tehsil, Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi.

Brief facts of the case are that Khata No. 300 plot No.

260 situated in village - Rajpura, Pargana - Bhadohi,

Tahsil-Gyanpur, District-Varanasi was recorded in the

name Babu Bechan Ram, Babu Mewa lal sons of

Anant Prasad and Shiv Balak Ram son of Goverdhan

Das in the khatauni of 1365 fasli. After the death of

Shiv Balak Ram the name of Rajesh, Rajendra and

Shiksha Gupta was mutated being legal heirs of Shiv

Balak Ram. That as per the report of Tehsildar dated

20.6.2022 the gata no.262 area 4-15-0 khasara zild

bandobast 1371 fasali in kism araji, talab is recorded

which in present fasali year 1424-1429 khatauni

khata no.291, gata no.262M area 0.598 hectare is

recorded in the name of Rajesh son of Shiv Balak,

Shiksha Devi wife of Shiv Balak, S.Gupta son of

Akhilesh and Chaya Devi daughter of Akhilesh as

Sankramaniya Bhumidhar. Gata no.262 as per fasali

is recorded as talab which is public utility land hence

the name of aforesaid persons may be deleted and

land be mutated in the name of talab.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel

submitted that petitioner has remedy to challenge

the order in appeal as provided under Section 38 (4)

of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or petitioner can

apply for recall of the order, if impugned order is ex-

parte. He further submitted that land was recorded

as Talab in 1371 fasli as such petitioner is not

entitled to any relief in respect to the public utility

land.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the

counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is no dispute about the fact that the

proceeding under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code,

2006 has been initiated in respect of the petitioner's

plot, which is recorded in the name of the petitioner

as Bhumidhar transferable rights in the khatauni

pertaining to 1424 fasli to 1429 fasli and the name of

the petitioner has been ordered to be expunged from

the disputed plot under the impugned order without

affording proper opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

The provision contained under Rule 36 (4) and 36(5)

are relevant, which prescribe procedure for deciding

the application/case under Section 38 of U.P.

Revenue Code 2006, the same are as under:

"36.Correction of error or omission (Section 38)-(1) Every application for correction of any

error or omission in the map, field-book (Khasra) or record-of rights (Khatauni) referred to

in section 38(1) shall contain the following particulars:-

(a)

Name,

parentage

and

address

of

the

applicant.

(b) The document for the correction whereof the application is being made.

(c) Particulars of the land to which the error or omission relates.

(d)

The

precise

nature

of

the

error

or

omission.

(e) The application shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the map, Khasra or Khatauni

to which the alleged error or omission relates.

(2) Proceedings for correction of the map, field book or record-of-rights may be initiated

even without any application under sub-rule (1), if the error or omission otherwise come