Allahabad High Court
Chhokhe Lal vs Additional Commissioner ... on 23 July, 2021
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16239 of 2021
Petitioner :- Chhokhe Lal
Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Judicial) And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aman Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.B. Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.
Present petition has been filed with following prayer:-
"(i) issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2010 (Annexure No.2), order dated 28.05.2018 (Annexure No. 4), order dated 02.04.2019 (Annexure No. 6) passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aonla, and order dated 15.02.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner, (Judicial) 2nd, Bareilly Division, Bareilly (Annexure No. 7).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, during the pendency of present writ petition before this Court."
The petitioner herein is Chookhe Lal. He is son of Kallu, who along with Anokhe Lal s/o Khimmi, was the asami patta holder of the land in dispute. Admittedly, the asami patta granted in the year 1976 expired after five years and vide order dated 20.10.2010, the name was deleted and the land was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha again.
Before passing the order dated 20.02.2020 summons were issued to Kallu and Anokhe, which were returned with the endorsement that the asami pattadars had died. The restoration application was filed by the petitioner after about three and half years on 10.10.2013 which was rejected by the order dated 28.5.2018. The petitioner filed Writ-C No. 27948 of 2018, which was allowed vide order dated 20.8.2018 and while quashing the order dated 28.2.2018 matter was restored to be decided within three months. Thereafter, the restoration application dated 25.9.2013 was again rejected vide order dated 2.4.2019 against which revision was filed, the same was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15.02.2021.
Challenging the same, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the order no notice was issued and the order passed was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a poor person and patta was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha without affording an opportunity of hearing, whereas the patta was granted in favour of their ancestors.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Suresh Giri and others vs. Board of Revenue and others 2010(2) ADJ 514. The aforesaid case is clearly distinguishable on law and facts both.
It is not in dispute that class-III asami patta is issued only for a period of five years and the land is given only for cultivation purpose and after expiry of five years, the same stands reverted back to Gaon Sabha and is recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha again.
He could not dispute the fact that asami patta is allotted only for a period of five years and the original patta holder has already died long back. Thus, substitution is not possible after expiry of asami patta.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned herein.
Present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2021
Aditya
