Allahabad High Court
Ram Yash vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. ... on 19 August, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Court No. - 21
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 5337 of 2013
Petitioner :- Ram Yash
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mata Prasad Yadav,Brijesh Yadav 'Vijay'
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Khan
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Gaon Sabha.
Petitioner has come up with a fantastic case to the effect that on 20.11.1975, some patta was proposed to be granted to him by the Gaon Sabha of village Bhagwaria and the proposal was approved by the S.D.O. on 01.01.1976. He filed application for mutation on the basis of the said patta on 19.12.2007 (i.e. after 32 years) before Deputy Collector, Amethi. It is inconceivable that in case some patta had been executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1975-76, his name would not have been entered in the revenue records immediately. There is absolutely no explanation of silence of 32 years. It is very surprising that Tehsildar Amethi on 27 (or 28) June, 2008 passed mutation order in favour of petitioner. Copy of that order has not been annexed. Against the said order Suraj Prasad and others filed revision (Case No.10/22, Sarju Prasad (or Suraj Prasad Vs. Ram Yash) which was dismissed in default by C.R.O., Sultanpur on 13.10.2009. Not being aware of that, Suraj Prasad and four others filed writ petition against the petitioner complaining that he had usurped the Gaon Sabha property, which was numbered as Misc. Single No.2408 of 2010, Suraj Prasad and four others Vs. State of U.P. and others. It was disposed of on 28.04.2010 directing the Collector to dispose of the revision expeditiously. After passing of the order dated 28.04.2010 by this court, the C.R.O. through order dated 27.02.2013 set aside its earlier order dismissing the revision in default and fixed the date for hearing of the revision. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that in the earlier writ petition, review petition has been filed. Be that as it may, it is more than evident that petitioner has usurped the Gaon Sabha land comprised in Plot Nos.69 (new 38), 105 (new 64), 493 (new 176), 224 (new 333). It is impossible that if patta had been allotted in 1975, petitioner would have remained silent until 2007. In this regard, paras 22 to 27 of the judgment reported in U.P. Awas Evam Vkas Parishad, Lucknow Vs. Lajja Ram, 2012, (3) AWC 2226 are quoted below:
"The provision of presumption is provided under Section 114 of Evidence Act, which contains some illustrations also. The said section along with illustrations (e) & (f) is quoted below:
"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
The Court may presume-
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular case;"
If the presumption of entry in favour of plaintiff's father for four or seven years is to be presumed then presumption of correctness of discontinuance of entry for 40 years will also have to be drawn.
Life of law has not been logic, it has been experience (O.W. Holmes). This principle applies with greater force on presumptions and human conduct. I have heard and decided hundreds of matters pertaining to agricultural land and my experience is that Gaon Sabha property has been looted by unscrupulous persons on a very large scale by manipulation in the revenue records and forging of orders particularly of consolidation courts. The modus operendi is that a very old entry or copy of order is produced like a rabbit from the hat of a magician and its resumption or recording is sought.
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011, Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, in Para-20 observed as follows:
"20. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be compared with the original revenue record showing the land as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices."
In Dina Nath Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (108) R.D. 321, I held that not making any efforts for getting the name of the petitioner entered in the revenue records on the basis of alleged patta by Gaon Sabha for 29 years proved that no patta was executed. I issued directions to all the Collectors to reopen all such cases where names of private persons were entered in the revenue records over Gaon Sabha land. Matter was carried to the Supreme Court in the form of S.L.P. (Civil) C.C.4398 of 2010 Dina Nath Vs. State. The Supreme Court decided the matter on 29.03.2010 and quoted almost my entire judgment in inverted commas and approved the same.
Accordingly, it is held that whenever a person comes along with the case that Gaon Sabha land was allotted to him or some order was passed by any Court in his favour declaring his right over Gaon Sabha land or some revenue entry was in his favour long before but during last several years his name is not recorded in the revenue records then an irrebuttable presumption amounting to almost conclusive proof must be drawn to the effect that allotment order or entry is forged."
Accordingly, it is directed that in case petitioner is in possession of the Gaon Sabha land, he must forthwith be dispossessed. No further proceedings in respect of entry of the name of petitioner shall be taken as no patta was granted in 1975-76 to the petitioner. Exercising powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India mutation order dated 27(28).06.2008 is set aside. Any proceeding pending anywhere in respect of the said plots before any of the courts below shall not be proceeded with. Writ of prohibition in this regard is issued.
For the period for which petitioner has illegally remained in possession, damages at the rate of Rs.7000/- per hectare per year shall also be recovered from him like arrears of land revenue.
Disciplinary proceedings against the Tehsildar who passed the order dated 27(28).06.2008 shall at once be initiated after suspension.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional C.S.C. and Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha respondent No.5.
Office shall also send copy of this order to the Chief Revenue Officer (C.R.O.), Sultanpur
Order Date :- 19.8.2013
NLY
