Keshv Ram And Others vs Addl. Commissioner Administration ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9480 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Keshv Ram And Others vs Addl. Commissioner Administration ... on 21 April, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


				 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22368
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3709 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Keshv Ram And Others
 
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Administration Second, Devi Patan Division, Gonda And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Srivastava Ram Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Ram Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private- opposite parties is hereby dispensed with.

3. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 07-12-2024 passed by Additional Commissioner Admin IInd, Devi Patan Division Gonda in case no.58/1995 Keshv Ram & others Vs. Rajmani and others computerized case no.-C199508000000018 under section 219 Land Revenue Act, 1901 and to quash consequential order dated 24-02-1995 passed by S.D.M. Karnailganj in case no.66/144/212/267/119/153 under section 33/39 Land Revenue Act, Village Jahuna, Pargana- pahadapur, Tahsil-Karnailganj, District-Gonda after summoning in original Rajmani Vs. Lahurmani & others contained as Annexure no.1 and 2 to this writ petition.

II.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing opp.parties to maintain the entry in Khatauni Gata no.1298M/0.25 dismil in the name of petitioners accordingly dismissed the application under section 33/39 for correction of forged order of A.C.O. dated 08-09-63 after expiry of 62 years."

4. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record including the observations made in the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner Administration IInd, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda in Revision No.58/1995 (Keshav Ram and others Vs. Rajmani and others) computerized Case No.C199508000000018 under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") as also in the order dated 24.02.1995 passed by S.D.M., Karnailganj in Case No. 66/144/212/267/119/153 under Section 33/39 of the land Revenue Act.

5. Before proceeding further, this Court finds appropriate to refer Section 40-A of the Act of 1901 (now repealed) and Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), came into force w.e.f. 11.02.2016, according to which provisions an order passed in a case related to correction of records, which is the case in issue, and in mutation proceeding would not bar a party to institute regular proceedings for declaration of the rights over the property in issue.

6. Now reverting to the facts of the case which borne out from the record are as under :-

(i) An application was preferred by the private opposite parties under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901 for correction of the revenue record based upon an order dated 08.09.1963 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Colonelganj, Gonda (in short "A.C.O.").

(ii) Before the A.C.O., the petitioner filed objection and after considering the relevant record including the certified copy of the order dated 08.09.1963, the A.C.O. allowed the application preferred by the private opposite parties under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901 vide order dated 24.09.1995.

(iii) The order dated 24.09.1995 was challenged by means of Revision No. 58 / 1995 (Computerized Case No. C199508000000058) (Keshavram and others Vs. Rajmani and others) under Section 219 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 1901. This revision, as detailed above, was dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2024.

(iv) Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ-C No. 8808/2022 (Keshavram and others Vs. Additional Commissioner, Administration, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda). This Writ-C No.8808 of 2022 was disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2022. By this order this Court set aside the order dated 03.11.2022, passed in Revision No.58/1995, detailed above, and the matter was remanded back to the revisional authority.

(v) The revision, detailed above, subsequently was registered as Case No. RST/58/1995 (Computerized Case No. C199508000000058) (Keshavram and others Vs. Rajmani and others). This case again was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2023.

(vi) Aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2023, the petitioners again approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.3727 of 2023 (Keshav Ram and 13 others Vs. Addl. Commissioner Second Devi Patan Division Gonda and 9 others). This court vide order dated 29.05.2023 partly allowed the writ petition. By this order, the matter was again remanded back to the revisional court.

(vii) In compliance of the order of this Court dated 29.05.2023, the revisional authority proceeded in the matter and passed the order dated 07.12.2024. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.12.2024 is extracted herein under :-

"eSaus mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr fo}rkiw.kZ fyf[kr cgl ,oa fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr dkxtkrksa ,oa izLrqr fof/k&O;oLFkkvksa dk lE;d#i ls ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA iz'uxr fuxjkuh voj U;k;ky; ijxukf/kdkjh djuSyxat }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 24-02-1995 ds fo#) ;ksftr fd;k x;k gSA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh dh rych gsrq bl U;k;ky; }kjk vk;qDr egksn; v;ks/;k e.My v;ks/;k] ftykf/kdkjh xks.Mk] izHkkjh vf/kdkjh jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj dysDVsªV xks.Mk ,oa U;k;ky; mi ftykf/kdkjh djuSyxat ls fofHkUu i=kpkj fd;k x;k] fdUrq voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh miyC/k ugha gks ikbZA pwafd ewy i=koyh miyC/k ugha gks ldh gS] blfy, fuxjkuh i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuh dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tk jgk gSA

mDr ds vfrfjDr i=koyh ij miyC/k U;k;ky; f}rh; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k xks.Mk }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 4@2002 jktefu cuke xkSjh'kadj vkfn esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 10-12-2002 dh izekf.kr izfr ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd U;k;ky; f}rh; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k xks.Mk us mDr vkns'k ds ek/;e ls nkok oknh fMdzh djrs gq, fookfnr Hkwfe ßvclnÞ xkVk la[;k 1298@2 fLFkr xzke >kSguk ijxuk igkM+kiqj rglhy djuSyxat o tuin xks.Mk ls izfroknh dks fu"ksfnr fd;k x;k gS rFkk oknh vFkkZr jktefu ds LokfeRo ,oa dCtk&n[ky esa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi u djsa vkSj u mlesa dksbZ fuekZ.k djsaA bl izdkj flfoy U;k;ky; us iz'uxr Hkwfe ij jktefu dk dCtk gksuk ik;k gSA tgka rd foi{kh la[;k&1 }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukafdr 17-07-2020 vUrXkZr /kkjk&190 lifBr /kkjk&340 lh0vkj0ih0lh0 ij bl U;k;ky; }kjk dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS] pawfd izkFkZuki= fofo/k okn dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS ftldk fuLrkj.k fuxjkuh esa lEHko ugha gS blfy, mijksDRk izkFkZuki= fnuakfdr 17-07-2020 rn~uqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

fuxjkuh eseks ds lkFk ijxukf/kdkjh djuSyxat ds okn la[;k 66@144@212@257@119@153 vUrxZr /kkjk&33@39 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e esa ikfjr vkns'k fnuakfdr 24-05-1995 dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi ls ;g Li"V gS fd lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk laf/k&i= ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 08-09-1963 dks iqjkuk xkVk la[;k 2346@4-14 ,dM+ esa ls 0-25 ,dM+ Hkwfe cStw ds uke vafdr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS fdUrq mldh vaduk jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa u gks ikus ds dkj.k pdCkUnh izfdz;k lekIr gks tkus ds i'pkr jktefu iq= cStw }kjk 33@39 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr izkFkZuk fnukad 14-02-1984 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls voj U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj djrs gq, jktefu iq= cStw dk uke jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa vafdr djus dk vkns'k fnukafdr 24-02-1995 dks ikfjr fd;k x;kA lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr laf/ki= rFkk mDr laf/ki= ds vk/kkj ij lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 08-09-1963 ds l{ke U;k;ky; ls fujLr gksus dk dksbZ izek.k i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA tcrd lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk mDr vkns'k fnukafdr 08-09-1963 l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr u dj fn;k tk;] rcrd mDr vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr vfHkys[kks esa vaduk lEcU/kh vkns'k fnukafdr 24-02-1995 dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj ifjyf{kr ugha gks jgk gSA pwafd voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh miyC/k ugha gks ldh] bl dkj.k fcuk ewy i=koyh ds Hkh iz'uxr vkns'k dks fujLRk fd;k tkuk izFke n`"V;k U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA

mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd fuxjkuh cyghu gS] tks fujLRk fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 24-02-1995 esa gLr{ksi dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA

vr% fuxjkuh fujLRk dh tkrh gSA fuxjkuh esa ;fn dksbZ LFkxukns'k ikfjr gks rks mls okil fy;k tkrk gSA

fnukad&07-12-2024"

7. From the impugned orders on record including the order dated 07.12.2024, the relevant portion is extracted herein above, this Court finds that all the orders are based on order dated 08.09.1963, passed by the A.C.O., Colonelgang, alleged to be forged.

8. To establish that order dated 08.09.1963 was fabricated/forged, before the authorities under the Act of 1953 as also before this Court no document such as questionnaire from the record room has been placed on record. Further, the observations, based upon the judgment dated 18.12.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.4 of 2022 (Rajmani Vs. Gauri Shanker and others) in the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which supports the claim of the private opposite parties, have also not been impeached.

9. Considering the aforesaid factual aspect of the case, as also the statutory provisions i.e. Section 40-A of the Act of 1901 (now repealed) and Section 39 of the Code of 2006, referred above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition challenging the orders related to summary proceedings.

10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file regular proceedings, as per law, claiming the rights over the property in issue.

Order Date :- 21.4.2025

ML/-