Hargen vs State Of U.P. & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3507 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 33458 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Hargen
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- R.P. Dubey
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Brahma Deo Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.P. Dubey.

Sri Dubey submits that the issue relating to the bar of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, could not have been taken into consideration by the Board of Revenue and that even otherwise the petitioner has perfected his title by virtue of his long standing possession since 1939 on the basis of a lease. He contends that the bar of Section 49 would not operate as the consolidation authorities have no right to adjudicate any controversy relating to land recorded as Banjar and for that he relies on two decisions of this court in the case of Ramphal & others Vs. Champat Singh & others, 1983 (2) RD 153 and the decision in the case of Bhillar & others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur & others, 1983 RD 299.

Having heard Sri Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner what transpires from the facts on record is that the petitioner is claiming his tenancy rights on the basis of an alleged lease of 1939. The claim, therefore, is founded on long standing possession of a lease. This is a claim which squarely falls for adjudication of such rights within the provisions of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953, namely, Section 4 read with Section 5 and Section 9 (A-2) thereof.

The contention of the petitioner is that since the land is recorded as Banjar, and therefore the consolidation authorities would not have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the objection to be entertained by the consolidation authorities is to be based on the nature of the rights claimed and not on the nature of the recorded entry. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore is unsustainable.

In the opinion of the court, the bar of Section 49 would squarely apply in the instant case and  the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue cannot be interfered with. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore would not be applicable as explained above.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 4.8.2011

Sahu

Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 271864 of 2010

In

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 33458 of 2010

Petitioner :- Hargen

Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others

Petitioner Counsel :- R.P. Dubey

Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Brahma Deo Mishra

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

The applicant in the opinion of the court is not required to be heard in view of the fact that the writ petition itself has been dismissed today.

The application is also rejected.

Order Date :- 4.8.2011

Sahu