Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Ishaque Son Of Late Mohd. Shafi And ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh, Through Home ... on 28 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(3)AWC2564
Author: S.N. Srivastava
Bench: S.N. Srivastava
JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. While being seized of the controversy involved in this petition, attention of the Court was drawn to a disquieting feature that petitioners have abused the process of the Court by filing a second petition for the selfsame reliefs the first one having met the fate of dismissal vide order dated 24.8.2005 passed in writ petition No. 55430 of 2005. Consequently, a detailed order was passed on 18.10.2005, issuing notice to the petitioners to appear in person on 9.12.2005 to show cause why proceeding be not launched against them for making false averments. On 27.2.2006, again a detailed order was passed directing Sub Divisional officer Tahsil Sadar Allahabad to produce alongwith the record the enquiry report fixing responsibility for non-compliance with the order of the Court dated 31.1.2006 communicated through letter dated 6.2.2006 by which Standing counsel was required to produce notification with a view to ascertain whether U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was applicable to the land in dispute or not. On 27.3.2005, the judgment was reserved in the case and 28.4.2006 was fixed.
2. The dispute in the instant matter revolves round plot No. 532 admeasuring 2 Bigha and 5 Biswas situated in village Kareli Tahsil Sadar District Allahabad. It would appear that in the earlier writ petition, which was dismissed on 24.8.2005, the petitioners had sought the relief of a writ of mandamus directing opposite party No. 2 to decide proceeding under Section 33 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act pending before S.D.O. Tahsil sadar District Allahabad. It would further appear that the petitioner had filed an application to correct entry in Khatauni by expunging the name of one Jeevan son of Kallu and in his place to record the name of the petitioner.
3. In the perspective that the petitioners had filed a second petition for the self-same relief the first one having been dismissed, record of the earlier petition was requisitioned. Sri Ahmad Hassan learned Counsel representing the petitioners stated across the bar that he had not been clued in about filing of the earlier writ petition. As stated supra, a notice having been issued, the petitioners appeared and filed their reply to the show cause notice together with the basis of their title alongwith a supplementary affidavit. It would further appear that the petitioners placed credence on some order in their favour incorporated in the Khatauni as well as the basis of the title i.e. mortgage deed dated 10.6.1975 executed by aforesaid Jeevan son of Kallu. On a careful scrutiny of materials on record, this Court directed Sub Divisional officer Tahsil Sadar to produce relevant record and enquiry report as directed by the Court. A counter affidavit sworn in by Sri Sameer Verma, Sub divisional Officer Tahsil Sadar District Allahabad came to be filed depicting that the village Kareli consisted of two types of property i.e. the land in Zamindari area and the land in non-zamindari area and that now Zamindari has been abolished but in certain area the properties are still being governed by the law relating to non-Zamindari Abolition Area and that the land in dispute fell in non-Zamindari Abolition Area. The further averments made in the counter affidavit are that the land has already vested in the State by order of the Prescribed Authority Ceiling dated 9.2.1979. It would transpire from a scrutiny of counter affidavit that numerous other documents were also filed alongwith counter affidavit to prop up the case that no orders were ever passed in favour of petitioners by any competent, authority and entry made in Khatauni was nothing but an instance of interpolation. Sri Sameer Verma, S.D.O. also produced enquiry report and it was conveyed to the Court that one O.P. Yadav, Naib Tahsildar has been held blameworthy in the matter and as a consequence, he has been visited with the punishment of warning.
4. Learned Standing counsel has drawn attention to the fact that Sub Divisional officer has already rejected case Nos. 61 and 62 instituted under Section 33 and 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act on the application of the petitioners on 10.4.2006 attended with further fact that entry made in favour of petitioners pursuant to the alleged order dated 15.2.1977 in case No. 15 of 1976 which was incorporated on 20.10.1993 was found to be forged inasmuch as neither any such case was registered nor any such order was ever passed* in so far as land in question is concerned. From a perusal of original documents including Khatauni produced before the Court by the S.D.O. as well as from what has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Standing counsel, it crystallizes that unscrupulous elements have been preying on state property by forming collusive combination without there being any valid document or title or without any orders passed by any of the competent authority in their favour ostensibly with the active connivance of revenue officials. In the circumstances, when things are ill-done and the Tahsil authorities that be, seem to be mute spectators to what is happening under their very nose, it is one of the sacred duty of the Court to step in to galvanize the state machinery into action. I therefore feel called to direct the Collector, Allahabad to embark upon a root and branch enquiry in the matter of revenue entries pertaining to different revenue villages/Mohall of Tahsil Sadar particularly in connection with entries relating to state land which have come to be recorded in the name of private individuals without there being any valid order passed by competent authority under the provisions of the Act and submit a report accordingly. He will also delve into fictitious entries made by Tahsil officials/officers without any legitimate proceeding or without any document on valid title and submit his report to the Court. The enquiry, it is expected, will be completed within a span of 15 days from today. In case any such enquiry has been made earlier by District Administration or Tahsil authorities including S.D.O. with regard to any property situated in Tahsil Sadar the same shall also be filed alongwith affidavit.
5. In the above conspectus it is accordingly directed that collector or any other officer or agency authorized by him shall launch enquiry into the correctness of all entries made in Khatauni and Khasra from the date of vesting in case the village or villages or part thereof are one where Zamindari has already been abolished and also those villages where Zamindari has not been abolished and the land is still governed by the U.P. Tenancy Act or provisions other than Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The precise point for scrutiny are;
(a) the forged entry made in Khatauni or Khasra if there is no order passed by any competent authority.
(b) The entry made in favour of a person on the land vested in the State and under management of the State and governed by Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
(c) The entry made in favour of any person without any registered document on transfer of land whether by registered sale deed, gift deed mortgage deed etc.
(d) The entry made in the revenue record like the present one where in fact there was no case or order passed but it was referred to in Khatauni without any valid basis alleging it to have been made pursuant to some order in some case.
6. The collector, on receipt of enquiry report shall duly submit the same to the Court if possible within 15 days. It may be clarified that in case any enquiry has already been set afoot by the District Authorities or Tahsil Authority or the matter has already been brought to the notice of District Administration or that any enquiry report conducted in the matter has already been submitted and the same is in possession of District Authorities, the same shall also be produced before the Court. It needs hardly be said that Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Nagar Nigam Allahabad/Vice Chairman Allahabad Development Authority shall make available all requisite records as desired by the Collector Allahabad or the Enquiry officer appointed by him as the case may be, whenever required.
7. To sum up, the Collector Allahabad shall submit complete report by 15th May 2006 and in case enquiry is not likely to be completed by that date, the District Magistrate may submit interim report by that date.
8. Let a copy of this order be supplied to Chief Standing Counsel within two days to enable him to communicate the order to Collector Allahabad/Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam Allahabad/Vice Chairman Allahabad Development Authority Allahabad accordingly.
9. List this matter after 15 days i.e. 16.5.2006.