WPMS/6842/1986
2021 Latest Caselaw 846 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No.6842 of 1986 (Old No.)
                                      WPMS No.4230 of 2001 (New No.)
                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sumit Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondent no.5.

The denial to grant a decree, in relation to Khet No.44/1 by the courts below and particularly by the judgment of 17.10.2017, is based upon an order which was passed by the Assistant Record Officer on 21.07.1964, which was alleged to be carried in the record operation proceedings. However, the judgment does not reflect that the said finding, which had been recorded, are on the basis of the documents, which were produced on record by the parties before the Court below.

In order to verify the said fact, the lower court records were summoned and the entries recorded therein particularly in the Khatauni of 1373 fasli, the entry which has been made therein as against Plot No.44/1, is shown to be that of 23.07.1967, which does not reflect the case number, in relation to which, and on the basis of which, the entries have been made. Nor even the document, which is on record by way of Paper No.4 Ka, is the basis of the finding recorded by the court in the judgment of 1977.

Similarly, the counsel for the respondent no.5, has submitted that the basis of the finding which has been recorded in 1977 judgement, happens to be on the basis of the Khasra for fasli 1370. The entries, which had been made by the ARO in column 10 and 11 of the document Paper No.10 Ka, referring to the order of 21.07.1964, as to be a basis for determining the possession of the respondent, is yet again not supported from the sources of the proceedings, on the basis of which the said entry was made. Though, the said document of 1370 fasli, was also on record as Paper No.10 (Ga) but yet again no finding has been recorded by the Court, that the basis of denying of decree for Plot No.44/1, was on the basis of the entry made in Paper No.10 (Ga) that is Khasra for the fasli year 1370.

Before venturing further, I am of the view that the respondents' right, which has been argued to be flowing from the orders, which was passed in the record operation dated 21.01.1964, the details of which are not available on record, is necessarily required for a better adjudication of the present case.

Hence, since the respondents is trying to derive the benefit of the entries made during the record operation, he is directed to place on record the certified copy of the order of 21.07.1964; as it has been referred in Paper No.10(Ga) that is Khasra No.1370 fasli before this Court further proceeds to decide the matter on its merits.

List this writ petition after three weeks.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 12.03.2021 Arti