Ram Sanehi And Another vs State Of U P And 12 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5206 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 09.02.2023
 
Delivered on 16.02.2023
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26294 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Sanehi And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 12 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Singh,Punita Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Gaur,Manoj Kumar Sahu
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the contesting respondent, Sri L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for respondent-land Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are plot No. 2384 and 2385 situated in Mauja Musmariya, Tehsil Kalpi, Distric Jalaun, (old number 2151/1 area 0.80 acre,  2152/2 area 0.28, acre total area 2.08 acre) was recorded as Navin Parti and Parti Kadeem respectively in revenue records. Plot No. 2384 Kha and 2385 area  1.08 acre was recorded in the name of Ram Das and plot No. 2384 area 1.0 acre was recorded in the name of Ram Sanehi in the revenue records who are petitioners in the instant writ petition on the basis of lease executed in favour of petitioners on 29.12.1985 as approved on 08.10.1986. According to petitioners lease was executed in favour of petitioners after following the due process of law. Respondent No. 5 and father of respondent No. 6 to 10 filed an application for cancellation of petitioners lease on 09.11.1992 and the same was dismissed on 26.11.1997. Against the order dated 26.11.1997 respondent no. 5 and father of respondent no. 6 to 10 filed revision before the Revisional Court which was allowed vide order dated 2.04.2003 setting aside the order dated 26.11.1997 and matter was remanded back before trial court to decide the lease cancellation application afresh.

3. In pursuance of the revisional order dated 02.04.2003 matter was heard before additional Collector who vide order dated 28.11.2004 maintained the lease executed in favour of the petitioner and rejected the lease cancellation application filed by contesting respondents. Against the order dated 28.11.2014 respondent no. 5 and respondent nos. 6 to 10 filed revision before the Commissioner which was heard by Additional Commissioner Jhansi, Division, Jhansi.

4. The revision was partly allowed vide order dated 21.06.2022 setting aside the order dated 28.11.2014, for part and declare the lease of petitioners as void regarding findings of facts that during consolidation proceedings, consolidation officer has passed the order dated 28.11.1992, under Section 9-A (2) of the UP C.H. Act declaring Bala Prasad father of the respondent no. 3 and Sahabrai as owner of plot no. 2152, area 2.08 acre and are entitled to be recorded, the finding of the fact has been also recorded that in civil suit no. 797 of 1957 (Bala Prasad Vs Gaon Sabha) decree dated 30.09.1958 was passed in respect to plot no. 2152 area 2.08 acres by which Bala Prasad and others were found grove holder of the same and defendants were restrained from interfering with the possession of Bala Prasad and others. Hence this Writ Petition on behalf of petitioners.

5. This Court vide order dated 09.01.2023 directed the counsel for the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit stating therein the date of agenda, Munadi, date of execution of lease, approval, date of filing of lease cancellation application as well as the document in support thereof. Counsel for the petitioner failed to file the supplementary affidavit in compliance of the order of this Court dated 09.01.2023.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lease was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985-86 as such cancellation proceeding initiated by contesting respondent is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the allotted land since the date of allotment. He further submitted that the land was vacant on the date of allotment. He further submitted that the lease was executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rule framed thereunder as such the cancellation proceeding is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the proceeding before the consolidation Court and before the Civil Court will not deprive the petitioner to claim the right on the basis of lease executed in their favour in accordance with law.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the land was not vacant on the date of allotment. They further submitted that in the title proceeding under Section 9A(2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act the ancestors of the contesting respondent has been found grove holder as such it cannot be said that the land was vacant on the date of the allotment. They further submitted that even in civil suit filed by the ancestors of the contesting respondents the possession of the ancestors of the contesting respondents has been proved that document the decree for injunction has been passed by the Civil Court in respect to the plot in question which also demonstrate that the land was not vacant on the date of allotment. They further submitted that the decree of Civil Court was passed on 30.09.1958 while the allotment has alleged to be made in the year 1985-86. They further submitted that ancestral grove of the contesting respondent is situated over the disputed plot no. 2384 Ka and 2385 as such there was no question of allotment of ancestral grove in favour of petitioners. They submitted that Writ Petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that the Patta cancellation application filed by the contesting respondent has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 28.11.2014 but in revision the order dated 28.11.2014 has been set aside and the lease of the petitioners has been declared void.

10. Since the Civil Court in civil suit no. 797 of 1957 (Bala Prasad vs Gaon Sabha) has passed the decree dated 13.09.1958 that the (old plot no. 2152 area 2.08 acre) is ancestral grove of the Bala Prasad (father of respondents) as such plaintiff Bala Prasad will not be dispossessed from the same so there was no question to make allotment of the plot no. 2152 in favour of petitioner. In view of the Civil Court decree the plot in dispute 2152 cannot be said to be vacant on the date of allotment made in the year 1985-86. Even in the consolidation proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, consolidation officer vide order dated 09.11.1992 has ordered to record the name of Bala Prasad and others as owner of plot no. 2152 area 2.08 acres, this also demonstrate that ancestor of the contesting respondent Bala Prasad and others were owner in possession of the disputed plot no. 2152.

11. The Revisional Court recorded finding of fact that ancestors of the contesting respondents are grove holders and their trees are situated over the plot on the basis of decree of Civil Court. Finding of fact has also been recorded that Patta executed in favour of the petitioners in respect to disputed plot is wholly void and is liable to be cancelled. The relevant portion of the judgment of the revisional Court is as follows:-

"आदेश पत्रक

न्यायालय : अपर आयुक्त (न्या०),प्रथम

मण्डलः झासी,जनपदः जालौन,तहसीलःकालपी

वाद संख्याः-46/2015

कंप्यूटरीकृत वाद संख्याः-C201506000046

बीबूराम आदि बनाम रामदास आदि

अंतर्गत धाराः-333,अधिनियमः-उ०प्र०ज०वि०भू०व्य०अधिनियम,1950

.............................................................

मैंने उभयपक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्ताओं की बहस को सुना तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अभिलेखो का अवलोकन किया। अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध न्यायालय अपर आयुक्त न्याय झांसी मण्डल झांसी आदेश दि०-02.04.2003 का भी अध्ययन किया गया अवर न्यायालय की पत्रावली मे प्रस्तुत दावा दि०-21.05.1996 मे तहसील से प्रस्तरवार आख्या एवं आवंटन पत्रावली तलब किये जाने का आदेश पारित किया गया एवं विपक्षीगण को कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया गया तथा आपत्ति का बार बार अवसर प्रदान करने के उपरान्त भी उनके द्वारा आपत्ति दाखिल नहीं की गयी एवं प्रकरण से सम्बन्धित आवंटन पत्रावली तलब किये जाने हेतु अनेकों पत्र / आदेश निर्गत किये गये किन्तु तहसील स्तर पर आवंटन पत्रावली उपलब्ध नहीं होने के कारण अवर न्यायालय को प्राप्त नहीं करायी जा सकी। उद्धरण खतौनी मौजा मुसमरिया तहसील कालपी जिला जालौन सन् 1397 से 1402 फसली मे खाता सं०-937 मे रामसनेही पुत्र निक्सन आराजी सं०-2384क/1.00 एकड व रामदास पुत्र गुज्झे 2384ख/0.28 व 2385/0.80 कुल 2 किता 1.08 मे असंक्रमणीय भूमिधर बतौर पट्टेदार दर्ज हैं एवं इसी खतौनी मे न्यायालय च०अ० उरई वाद सं०-290 आदेश दि०-20.07.1993 नियम 109 साहब राय आदि बनाम गांवसभा आकार पत्र 45 के नवीन गाटा सं०-2384/1.28 क व ख बाग 2385/0.80 बाग मे अंकित पेड़ों के स्वामी बालाप्रसाद उर्फ लालसिंह पुत्र गुलाब सिंह, साहब राय पुत्र महादेव सिंह निवासी ग्राम का नाम अंकित हो दर्ज है। रजिस्टर मालिकान सत्यप्रतिलिपि जिल्द सं०-5 मौजा मुसमरिया मे भी आदेश दि०-20.07.1993 चकबन्दी अधिकारी उरई दर्ज है एवं रजिस्टर मालिकान जिल्द नं०-5 मौजा मुसमरिया क्रम सं०-6 आदेश दि०-28.11.1992 न्यायालय चकबन्दी अधिकारी अन्तिम अभिलेख उरई वाद सं०-582 धारा 9क (2) जोत चकबन्दी अधि० मौजा मुसमरिया तहसील कालपी जिला जालौन बालाप्रसाद बनाम गांवसभा आराजी नं०-2152/2.08 पर स्थित पेड़ों के स्वामी वादीगण बालाप्रसाद उर्फ लालसिंह आत्मज गुलाब सिंह व साहब राय आत्मज महादेव सिंह निवासी ग्राम का नाम अंकित हो दर्ज है। न्यायालय चकबन्दी अधिकारी अन्तिम अभिलेख उरई मु०नं०-582 धारा 9क (2) सी०एच० एक्ट बालाप्रसाद आदि बनाम गांवसभा आदि निर्णयादेश दि०-09.11.1992 प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि से पूर्णतः सिद्ध है कि बाग के स्वामी बालाप्रसाद आदि हैं। न्यायालय मुन्सिफ उरई मु०नं०-797 सन् 1957 बालाप्रसाद बनाम गांवसभा डिक्री दि०-30.09.1958 सत्यप्रतिलिपि से पूर्णतः स्पष्ट है कि आराजी सं०-2152/2.08 बालाप्रसाद आदि का बाग है। जिससे उन्हें बेदखल करने से हमेशा के लिये मना किया गया है। आकार पत्र 2 ए मौजा मुसमरिया से स्पष्ट है कि गाटा सं०-2152 मौके पर बाग है नक्शा पुष्टिकृत मौजा मुसमरिया आराजी नं०-2152 मे बाग के चिन्ह दर्शित हैं। आकार पत्र 41 मौजा मुसमरिया से पूर्णतः स्पष्ट है कि आराजी सं०-2152 नयी गाटा सं०-2384 क,ख 1.28 एकड व 2385/0.80 डि० बनाया गया है।

उपरोक्त विवेचना से पूर्णतः स्पष्ट है कि वादग्रस्त भूमि 2384 क ख/1.28 व 2385/0.80 जो वादीगण/ निगरानीकर्तागण की पुस्तैनी बाग है जिस पर मौके पर पेड खड़े हैं एवं सक्षम दीवानी न्यायालय डिक्री दि०-30.09.1958 से पूर्णतः स्पष्ट है कि पुरानी आराजी नं०-2152/2.08 एकड से वादीगण को बेदखल करने से हमेशा के लिये मना किया गया है एवं दौरान चकबन्दी न्यायालय चकबन्दी अधिकारी उरई आदेश दि०-09.11.1992 धारा 9क (2) सी०एच० एक्ट वादीगण का वादग्रस्त भूमि मे स्वत्व निर्धारण करते हुये बाग मे अंकित पेडो के स्वामी उन्हें माना जा चुका है एवं उसका अमलदरामद भी आदेश दि०-20.07.1993 नियम 109 चकबन्दी अधि० कराया जा चुका है एवं उक्त आराजी मौके पर खाली न होने के कारण विपक्षी सं०-1 व 2 क्रमशः रामदास पुत्र गुज्झे को 2384 ख/0.28 व 2385/0.80 तथा रामसनेही पुत्र निक्सन को आराजी सं०-2384क/1.00 का पट्टा स्वतः शून्य साबित हो जाता है एवं उक्त भूमि का पट्टा उन्हें नहीं किया जा सकता है एवं न ही कब्जा दिया जा सकता है।

अतः निगरानीकर्तागण की निगरानी आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार की जाती है एवं अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दि०-28.11.2014 आंशिक रूप से निरस्त करते हुये आवंटी रामदास पुत्र गुज्झे आराजी सं०-2384ख/0.28 डि०,2385/0.80 डि० व रामसनेही पुत्र निक्सन आराजी सं०-2384क/1.00 एकड के किये गये पट्टे शून्य होने के कारण निरस्त किये जाते हैं तद्नुसार परवाना अमलदरामद जारी हो शेष आदेश अवर न्यायालय दि०-28.11.2014 यथावत् रखा जाता है। वाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही उपरान्त पत्रावली दाखिल-दफ्तर की जावे।

जून,21,2022

(आर०पी० मिश्रा)

अपर आयुक्त (न्यायिक),

झांसी मण्डल झांसी।"

12. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the revisional Court on the basis of the decree of Civil Court as well as judgment passed in the title proceeding by the Consolidation Court no interference is required against the impugned order. Writ Petition is devoid of merit and same is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 16.2.2023

Gaurav/PS*