Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23622 of 2022

Petitioner :- Dashrath Lal And 2 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- K.C. Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Azad Rai

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri K.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Azad Rai, learned

counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for

the State-respondents.

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.7.2021 passed by the Additional

District Magistrate (Judicial), Kaushambi whereby the application of the

petitioner against the allotment of land in favor of respondent nos.5 to 8 has

been rejected holding it to be barred by principles of res judicata. The order

passed in revision confirming the said order has also been challenged. The

ground of attack principally is that earlier the complaint that was made that

became subject matter of decision under the order dated 28.9.2012 and

3.11.2012, was in respect of Plot No.209 only whereas the present applicant had

filed a complaint against the allotment proceedings in respect of Plot No.321

area 0.340 hectares.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the main grievance of

the petitioner has been that his complaint has not been looked into from the

aspect that petitioner was in possession over the land in question and has grown

various trees upon the said land. He submits, therefore, that allotment of said

land was bad in law. However, he could not dispute that the tenure holders,

Amar Singh and his wife Suvihiti were in possession of alotted land.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel as well learned counsel for the Gaon

Sabha have argued that merely certain trees have been grown by the petitioner

upon the gaon sabha land, he can not set up any title over the gaon sabha land

inasmuch as no law of adverse possession is available to establish rights and title

upon the gaon sabha land. It has been argued further that a categorical finding

has come to be returned that there was no illegality in the allotment proceedings

and once the allotment proceedings have been lawfully carried out and the

allotted persons have been placed in possession, the allotment orders cannot be

challenged on any ground of possession by a third party. They have further

submitted that it is always open for the petitioners to claim posessory rights as

against the tenure holders who are in possession and may also set up a title by

means of a revenue suit provided ofcourse, the law permits them to do so.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and arguments raised across the

bar, I find that the only ground taken for maintainability of complaint against the

allotment proceedings is that the petitioner has been in possession over the land

in question. The complaint as has come to be discussed in the impugned order

clearly reflects that the petitioners are claiming possesory rights only on the

basis of certain trees grown upon the land which was recorded as banjar land.

Nowhere it is pleaded nor argued that there was any discrepancy or illegality

much less a legal one in the allotment proceedings except the rights of the

petitioner to claim possession over the land in question.

I find merit in the submission advanced by learned Standing Counsel as well as

learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha that no adverse possession can be claimed in

respect of State land or land belonging to gaon sabha. A person can maintain

revenue suit for getting a declaratory decree in respect of title being claimed

provided such person can set up a title in the nature of any sirdari rights or

cultivatory rights on the date of vesting that is 1356 fasli.

Besides the above, I find that the principle of res judicata has been made

applicable. The principle of res judicata as enunciated under Section 11 Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 not only denotes a situation wher