Gyan Chandra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 177 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


 

 
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
 

 
While assailing the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the opposite party no. 2- Additional Commissioner (Administration), Second, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, in Case No. C-202108000000544 (544/2021) under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the claim of the petitioner is based upon the sale deed dated 22.08.1966 regarding plot/Gata No. 498 registered on 03.12.1966.
 

 
It is further stated that based upon this sale deed father of the petitioner-Sri Nand Kishore preferred an application for correction of entry under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act of 1901, which was registered as Case No. 24/19/47/163 and subsequently was allowed vide order dated 18.09.1989 whereby the S.D.M. Gonda directed to Tehsildar Tarabganj, District Gonda to correct the revenue record however, the said order was not complied with.  Thereafter, the father of the petitioner Nand Kishore, based upon the order of S.D.M. dated 18.09.1989, preferred another application for compliance of order dated 18.09.1989, which was allowed by Tehsildar Tarabganj, District Gonda vide order dated 17.03.2021.  By this order the S.D.M. again directed the Tehsildar Tarabganj to enter the name of father of the petitioner in the revenue record.
 

 
Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2021 the private opposite party nos. 5 and 6 namely Sumiran and Sewak, respectively, preferred Revision No. 544 of 2021 in which the order impugned has been passed.  The revisional authority vide impugned order dated 22.11.2022 interfered in the order of S.D.M. Tarabganj, Gonda dated 17.03.2021 on the ground that the proceedings initiated for the purposes of recording the name in the revenue records by the father of the petitioner Nand Kishore, were barred by Section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
 

 
He stated that reasoning given by the revisional authority is unjustified.  The entry in the revenue record if based upon the fraud can be corrected at any point of time.  Moreover, in the facts of the case, for the purposes of correction of revenue record, the Section 49 of the Act would not be attracted.  In this regard reliance has been placed on the following judgments:-
 
1.

Writ-C No. 15757 of 2003 (Gaya Prasad and Others Vs. Yadunath and Others) decided on 26.05.2017.

2. 1978 LawSuit (All) 704 (Ghafoor Vs. Additional Commissioner and Others).

As such, the indulgence of this Court is required.

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, this Court is of the view that matter requires consideration.

Let notices be issued to private opposite parties.

Steps be taken within seven working days.

List immediately after service of notice.

Till the next date of listing, parties shall main status-quo as it exists today.