Allahabad High Court
Hausila Prasad vs State Of U.P.Through Collector ... on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49522
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1001053 of 1999
Petitioner :- Hausila Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Ambdkar Nagar And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K.Upadhyaya,Dilip Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Respondent :- Chief Standing Counsel,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Girish Kumar Pandey,R.N.Gupta
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar Gautam,learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Girish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 11.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.02.1991 passed by Additional Development Officer (Panchayatiraj) Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar thereby rejecting the objections preferred by the petitioners in proceedings for including the name of Ram Kishun in the pariwar register and further rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and further the order dated 06.01.1999 passed by SDM, Jalapur, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Additional Development Officer, (Panchayatiraj) Jalalpur.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that he is the son of Bhuleshwar who died on 07.10.1989. The application under Rule 6 of U.P. Panchayatiraj (maintenance of (Family Register) Rules, 1970 was moved by Ram Kishun (predecessor in interest of the private respondent) for including his name in the family register of the village. The Additional Development Officer, (Panchayatiraj) Jalalpur by means of his order dated 18.02.1991 allowed the said application and included the name of Ram Kishun in the family register. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.1991 preferred an appeal before the SDM, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar and his appeal has been rejected on the ground of limitation as well as on merits by means of impugned judgment dated 06.01.1999 and it is in the aforesaid circumstances present writ petition has been filed assailing both the orders namely, 18.02.1991 as well as judgment judgment dated 06.01.1999.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Ram Kishun has filed application for correction of pariwar register on false and incorrect facts starting himself to be the son of Bhuleshwar. He submitted that the petitioner is the only son of Bhuleshwar and Ram Kishun has played fraud by moving the said application. The said appeal was resisted by legal heirs of Ram Kishun. It was stated that the name of Ram Kishun had already been mutated in the revenue records as well as in the khatauni by means of order dated 21.11.1989. It was further recorded that Ram Kishun was the son of first wife of Bhuleshwar. It was also recorded that an inquiry in this regard was also conducted by Gram Panchayat Adhikari and in his report a proposal was unanimously approved by the gaon sabha on 20.01.1991 indicating that Ram Kishun was the son of Bhuleshwar and considering the entire material on record including the proposal of the gaon sabha, the order of mutation dated 21.11.1989 , the Additional Development Officer, Panchayatiraj concluded that Ram Kishun was the son of Bhuleshwar and accordingly according to provisions of Uttar Pradesh Panchayatiraj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 included his name in the pariwar register.
5. With regard to the question of limitation, it has been submitted that order of Additional Development Officer, Panchayatiraj dated 18.02.1991 has been challenged only in the year 1997 after a delay of nearly 6 years. The petitioner stated that he was aware of the order dated 18.02.1991. He also stated that only in the mutation proceedings that the petitioner came across with the statement made by Ram Kishun disclosing about the order dated 18.02.1991 by Additional Development Officer, Panchayatiraj. It is stated that the petitioner came to know about the said fact only on 23.04.1997 and the appeal was immediately filed thereafter on 24.05.1997.
6. The SDM, Jalalpur while deciding the appeal has disbelieved the statement of the petitioner inasmuch as a certified copy of the objections was obtained by the petitioner through counsel on 27.09.1994 which was part of the records. According to him, it was evident that the petitioner was aware of the order dated 18.02.1991 on 27.09.1994 when his counsel has obtained certified copy of order. Neither before any of the authorities below nor even in the writ petition, the petitioner has denied this facts. It is evident that the petitioner who was contesting the mutation proceedings through his counsel had received information about the existence of the order dated 18.02.1991 on 27.09.1994 and there is no explanation for the delay in filing of the appeal.
7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellate authority has returned a finding in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has re-agitated all the issues canvassed by him before the appellate authority. He has submitted that the application for being included the name in the pariwar register has falsely and fraudulently made by private respondents. He submits that without giving any opportunity of hearing the Additional Development Officer, Panchayatiraj has passed the said order.
9. With regard to the delay, he has reiterated his stand that he was not aware of the proceedings pending before the Additional Development Officer, Panchayatiraj, therefore, could not put in appearance.
10. The writ petition has been resisted by Sri Girish Kumar Pandey who has appeared on behalf of private respondents. He has submitted that on merits as well as on limitation the findings recorded by both the authorities below do not require any interference. He has submitted that after death of Bhuleshwar, the name of Ram Kishun was duly mutated in the revenue records which is evidenced by the Khatauni for fasli year 1397-1402 by its order dated 21.11.1989. He has further submitted that the proposal was duly placed before the gaon sabha which uniformly passed resolution in favour of Ram Kishun holding that he is the son of Bhuleshwar and it is the basis of the aforesaid substantial and material evidence that the application of Ram Kishun was allowed.
11. Petitioner has merely contested the stand of the Ram Kishun without placing any adequate evidence or material in his favour except the fact that his name is entered in the electoral rolls of Faridpur.
12. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, substantial evidence and material that the authorities have found favour and relied upon the application preferred by Ram Kishun. They have returned finding in favour of Ram Kishun on the basis of cogent evidence produced by him while the same could not be effectively countered by the petitioner. This Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order, nor any evidence or material to interfere in the finding It is further noticed that it is only interest of the petitioner that the appellate authority decided the said matter on the point of limitation as on merits.
13. In light of the above, there is no ground for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 27.7.2023
Ravi/
