Allahabad High Court
Angoori Devi vs The State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 22 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182568
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3963 of 2024
Petitioner :- Angoori Devi
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Khandelwal
Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Vishal Khandelwal, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
2. It is case of petitioner that on 17.11.1975, a patta was executed in favour of Gangoli S/o Hoti who by virtue of law, became Bhumidhar with transferable rights and executed a registered sale deed dated 09.01.2012 in favour of petitioner in regard to plot in question.
3. After lapse of 43 years, on a complaint filed by respondent-6, proceedings were initiated for correction of record U/s 32/38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and on basis of ex-parte reports dated 21.05.2018 and 09.10.2018, Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 11.12.2018 expunged the entries made in favour of petitioner.
4. Challenge to it at the behest of petitioner by way of filing an appeal and later on by way of filing a revision got failed since both got rejected vide orders dated 06.06.2023 and 01.07.2024 respectively.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a detailed revision was filed taking various grounds, however, Revisional Court has not considered it and only on basis of findings returned by two Revenue Courts, on basis of ex-parte reports, dismissed the revision petition and he refers paragraph 6 of impugned order which is quoted below :-
?6. ?? ???????? ?? ????? ???????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????????????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ??????????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???-??? ??????? ????????? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ????
6. Learned counsel further submits that a long continuous uninterrupted revenue entries could not be dislodged in a summary proceedings of record corrections treating the patta as fake without giving any opportunity and he refers judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Noor Mohd. and others vs. Additional Commissioner, Meerut and others, 2016 (132) RD 126.
7. Learned counsel further submits that no proceedings were undertaken for cancellation of patta, therefore, revenue entries made in favour of petitioner could not be expunged in summary proceedings.
8. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Smt. Sakuntala and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (5) AWC 5007.
9. Learned counsel further submits that delay of more than 4 decades was not condoned and in support of this submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Londhe Prakash Bhagwan vs. Dattatraya Eknath Mane and others, 2013 (139) FLR 301.
10. Learned counsel for respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel have supported the impugned order that since petitioner has not come forward with any evidence in regard to patta allotted to his vendor and it is well settled that a vendee could not get better title than its vendor, therefore, a fraud could not be allowed to continue and it is well settled that "fraud vitiates all solemn acts".
11. I have considered above submissions and perused the record.
12. At this stage, I find substance in argument of learned counsel for petitioner to the extent that since various arguments were raised in memo of revision, however, it appears that same has not been considered by Revisional Court as well as it also appears that above referred judgments were not placed before Revisional Court, therefore, instead of interfering with impugned order at this stage, a liberty is granted to petitioner to file review/recall application referring above referred judgments also.
13. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that in case any application is filed by petitioner for review/recall of impugned order within four weeks from today, the Board of Revenue will take all endeavour to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a short period after considering rival submissions, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024
N. Sinha
