Allahabad High Court
Ram Swaroop & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 8030 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ram Swaroop & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Ravindra Nath Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.6-Gaon Sabha and Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 5.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners was allotted the Assami Patta in 1382 Fasli and as per the amendment made in Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the persons who were allotted Patta in 1381 Fasali had become Bhumidhar, whereas the father of the petitioners was Sirdar of the land and already in possession over the land in dispute, but without considering the same the land was directed to be recorded as Banjar in the account of Gram Sabha by the Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 22.01.2010 and the name of the father of the petitioner Bheekha was expunged. The petitioners had filed an appeal which has also been dismissed on the ground that the Patta of an Asdami is valid up to five years and thereafter it comes to an end and accordingly the revision has also been dismissed relying on a judgment in the case of Kalika Prasad and others Versus State of U.P through Principal Secretary, Revenue and others; 2017 (134) RD 565. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable, whereas in the said case the Patta was for the pond, therefore, it is not applicable.
On the other hand learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that the petitioners have failed to show the Patta as well as the source of possession of the property prior to 1382 fasali. The Patta was for a maximum period of five years and the father of the petitioners had also not challenged the order passed by the Consolidation Officer during his life time. So far as the judgment relied by the Court's below is concerned, he submitted that the issue of Assami Patta has been decided, therefore the impugned orders have rightly been passed.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record it appears that Assami Patta was given to the father of the petitioner Bheekha in 1382 fasali i.e. in the year 1975. The source of possession prior to that has not been shown by the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 22.01.2010 had directed to record the land in dispute in the account of Gaon Sabha. Bheekha, the father of the petitioners had died in the year 2013 and during his life time he had not challenged and accepted the same. The petitioners preferred a highly time barred appeal in the year 2017 which has been dismissed by means of order dated 22.03.2018 and accordingly the revision has also been dismissed. The petitioners have also failed to show the patta on the basis of which the land was allotted to the father of the petitioners and the terms and conditions of Patta. While it is settled that the Assami Patta was for a period of five years and thereafter the petitioners have no right on the land in dispute. This court in the case of Kalika Prasad and others (Supra) has also held that in case of Assami Patta there is no right after five years. Therefore this court is of the view that there is no illegality or error in the order passed by the Court's below. The writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
......................................... (Rajnish Kumar,J.)
Order Date :- 22.3.2021
Banswar
