Allahabad High Court
Udai Raj & Others vs Land Management Committee & ... on 9 November, 2017
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25661 of 2000
Petitioner :- Udai Raj & Others
Respondent :- Land Management Committee & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- G.D. Srivastava,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Prem Narain Rai,S.P. Vishwakarma,Vijay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.D. Chauhan
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
After the petitioners were allotted Pattas on 7.9.1975 and their names were recorded on 12.10.1975 in the revenue records and when almost after ten years, on the applications of the Pradhan, their names were deleted on 31.1.1987, they filed a revision, which was dismissed on 22.10.1988 by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Gorakhpur Mandal. Aggrieved thereof they filed a Revision before the Board of Revenue at Lucknow which again dismissed the same on 5.9.1990. The review petition was also dismissed on 19.4.2000. Hence this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners essentially submitted :
(I) Under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to delete the names of the petitioners from the revenue records after holding that the pattas on the basis of which the petitioners were entered were Farzi and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
(II) There is a whole procedure prescribed for the cancellation of a patta under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and that till it is valid no Authority could declare a patta Farzi or invalid under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
(III) Against the patta dated 7.9.1975 an application under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by one Ram Awadh but the same was dismissed on 21.11.1981. The revision filed against the order dated 21.11.1981 was also dismissed.
(IV) The Pradhan had also filed an application against the petitioners under Section 198(4) on 25.6.1986. However, the case as was instituted by the Pradhan was also on the directions of the ADM, Basti dropped on 19.2.1987.
(V) In a civil suit being Suit No.79 of 1987 which was filed by the petitioners for the relief of permanent injunction issue no.1 was with regard to the validity of the patta and it was held therein that the petitioners were having valid pattas by a judgment and decree dated 8.3.1991.
(VI) As has been held in the case of 1977 Alld. 360 (Simlesh Kumar vs. Gaon Sabha, Uskar Ghazipur and others) a patta can be cancelled only by the procedure prescribed by the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and this procedure could not be circumvented. It had to be followed in the manner it had been provided. No shortcuts could be taken recourse to. Reference was made to 2007(4) ESC 2339 (Prof. Ramesh Chandra vs. State of U.P. And others) and in 2012 (5) AWC 4690 (Smt. Dhanauti (D) through L.Rs. and others vs. Additional Commissioner (E-II), Varanasi and others) and was argued that authorities under the Land Revenue Act, could under no circumstances cancel a patta.
(VII) It was further argued that even if it is alleged that an entry is forged then the same cannot be cancelled under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties.
(VIII) Proviso to Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act states that the Collector is not empowered to decide a dispute involving a question of title and thus the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that till such time the patta was not cancelled, the entries on the basis of it could not be doubted.
In the end, learned counsel pointed out to the paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit wherein it had been stated that the Nayab Tehsildar himself had admitted that in the old allotment register received from the Tehsil and also in the report of the Nayab Tehsildar relating to village-Bardand, the land had been mentioned in the name of Ram Ashrey.
The learned counsel for the respondent-State however, submitted that since it had been found that the patta was a Farzi one, it was well within the jurisdiction of the S.D.O. to have cancelled the patta. Relying on AIR 1990 SC 1744 (Ossein and Gelatine Manufactures' Association of India v. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd and another), AIR 1991 SC 909 (U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee vs Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani And Ors) and AIR 1991 SC 1886 (Mr. Louis De Raedt vs Union Of India And Ors) it was submitted that no opportunity was required to be given to the petitioners before removing their names from the Revenue Records.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that the deletion of the names of the petitioners from the revenue records after holding that pattas were Farzi was illegal. The initial order dated 31.1.1987 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. When the pattas were in existence and they had been found by a competent civil court's judgment and decree dated 8.3.1991 that they were genuine pattas then the Revenue Authorities, who had no authority to adjudicate upon the pattas, could not have cancelled the revenue entries and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Still further, I find that when proceedings under Section 198 (4) were initiated and they were never taken to their logical end by the Pradhan and the pattas were never cancelled, the Revenue Authorities should have stayed away.
In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.1.1987 passed by the S.D.O., the order dated 22.10.1988 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and the orders dated 5.9.1990 and 19.4.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue are quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 9.11.2017
Ashish Pd.
