Allahabad High Court
Ram Sahay vs The Addl. Commissioner Amdn. And ... on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9562 of 2013
Petitioner :- Ram Sahay
Respondent :- The Addl. Commissioner Amdn. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Tewari,S.S. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai,Mahesh Narain Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Revenue) District Gorakhpur as well as the order dated 09.11.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Gorakhpur Division, District Gorakhpur dismissing Revision No.194/175/G of 2008 filed against the order of the Additional District Magistrate.
The facts of the case are that respondent nos.3 to 5 i.e., respondent Ist set instituted Case No.252 under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for correction of revenue map stating that the revenue map did not correctly reflect the area of plot no.422 ( area 1.15 acres). It was stated that the area as reflected in the revenue map was less than that recorded in the khatauni relating to the aforesaid plot. The Revenue Inspector submitted his report stating that the area of the plot as shown in the map was 0.10 acres less than the area shown in the khatauni and the area of plot nos.348, 349, 354, 353, 351, 421 and 420 as shown in the revenue map were more than the area of the said plots as shown in the revenue records i.e., khatauni. Relying on the aforesaid report, the Additional Collector (Administration) District Gorakhpur vide his order dated 25.09.1995 allowed the application under Section 28 and directed for correction of the revenue map. It appears that the order dated 25.09.1995 was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner whose plot nos. are 353, 354, 346, 348 and 359 were also affected by the orders dated 25.09.1995.
Consequently, the order dated 25.09.1995 was recalled and the case was again heard by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Revenue) District Gorakhpur. However, the Additional District Magistrate vide his order dated 31.12.2007 again allowed the application filed under Section 28.
It appears from a reading of the order dated 31.12.2007 that before the Additional District Magistrate, the petitioner had pleaded that the nature of the plot nos. 554, 348 and 350 had changed and the said plots had become abadi plots, therefore, the case under Section 28 was not maintainable. The Additional District Magistrate vide his order dated 31.12.2007, rejected the aforesaid plea. Revision No.194/175/G-2008 filed against the order dated 31.12.2007 has also been rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Administration).
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 28 were not maintainable as the nature of plot nos.554, 348 and 350 were changed and the said plots were abadi and, therefore, the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to proceed under the Act, 1901. It was further argued that before passing the order dated 31.12.2007, the Additional District Magistrate has mechanically relied on the report of the Revenue Inspector and has not recorded any independent finding regarding the grievance of the opposite parties i.e., respondent no.1 set. It was argued that the failure of the Additional District Magistrate to record his independent findings regarding the error in the revenue map vitiates the order dated 31.12.2007. It was argued that for the aforesaid reason, the order dated 31.12.2007 and 09.11.2012 are liable to be set-aside.
In support of his argument, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of this court reported in Ram Kumar Versus Addl. Commissioner Meerut Mandal Meerut and 4 Others [2017 (134) RD 758] and Ashfaq Ahmad Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration) & 10 Others [2017 (137) RevDec 163].
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for reasons stated subsequently.
It is not denied that plot no.422 was subject to land revenue and was not an abadi plot. Apart from the aforesaid, there is no declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 regarding plot nos. 554, 348 and 350. In the circumstances, proceedings under Section 28 of Act, 1901 for correction of revenue map containing plot nos. 422, 554, 348 and 350 as well as other plots were maintainable and there is no jurisdictional error in the order dated 31.12.2007.
So far as the other argument of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is true as observed by this Court in Ram Kumar (supra) and Ashfaq Ahmad (supra) that the Additional District Magistrate had to record his independent finding regarding any error in the revenue map and cannot mechanically rely on the report of the Revenue Inspector. However, a revenue map is prepared so as to correctly reflect the area of the plots as recorded in the khatauni. There were no pleadings by the petitioner either before the Additional District Magistrate or before this Court that the report of Revenue Inspector is contrary to the entries in CH 41 and CH 45. The subsequent khataunis are prepared on the basis of CH 45. The report submitted before the Additional District Magistrate indicated that the area of plot no.422 as shown in the revenue map was 0.10 acres less than the area as shown in the khatauni of the aforesaid plot. It is not the case of the petitioners as pleaded before this Court that the said findings are erroneous and contrary to the entries in CH 45. In view of the aforesaid, there is no reason to set-aside the impugned orders dated 31.12.2007 and 09.11.2012 merely on the ground that the Additional District Magistrate has not referred to his own independent observations of entries in CH 41 and CH 45.
In any case, the proceedings under Section 28 of the Act, 1901 are summary proceedings and do not finally determine the rights of the parties.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no jurisdictional error in the orders dated 31.12.2007 and 09.11.2012 or any other illegality so as to occasion interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner may exercise any other remedy available to him in law.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.2.2023
Vipasha
