Allahabad High Court
Ram Janam @ Ram Janam Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 3 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27869 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Janam @ Ram Janam Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dwijendra Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devesh Pandey,Pradeep Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Dwijendra Prasad, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Pandey, counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 8, Sri Pradeep Singh, counsel for the respondent no.4/gaon sabha and the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally, without inviting any counter affidavit.
Brief facts of the case are that a case under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been filed by the mother of respondent nos. 6 to 8 wherein report dated 27.12.2016 has been submitted by Tahsildar in the aforementioned proceedings. The Additional Collector vide order dated 27.8.2018 allowed the application filed under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Against the order dated 27.8.2018, petitioner filed a revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was registered as Revision No.478/2021. The revisional court has dismissed the petitioner's revision, hence this writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decided/allowed arbitrarily without considering the reports submitted by the revenue authority in accordance with law. It is also submitted that there was no proper inspection / measurement of the adjoining plots and a vague report has been submitted by the revenue authority. It is further submitted that in the report, it is mentioned that the area of several plots including the petitioner's plot, is in excess, although, there should be separate inspection / demarcation of every plot. He further submitted that petitioner's plot has been affected by allowing the application of the contesting respondents, as such, the petitioner filed revision but the revisional court, without considering the grounds set up in the grounds of revision as well as argued before the revisional court, dismissed the revision. He further submitted that the impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded back before the courts below with a direction to decide the application under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 afresh, after obtaining fresh report of the plots in dispute, including the adjoining plot.
On the other hand, counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that respondent no.5 is dead but the writ petition has been filed impleading the deceased respondent no.5. He further submitted that although the three sons of respondent no.5 has been impleaded but one of the son has not been impleaded, as such, the writ petition is defective. He further submitted that application under Section 30 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 was rightly filed by mother of respondent No. 5 to 8 in respect of her plot No. 156 and the report was submitted in accordance with law. He also submitted that after considering the report as well as the statement of the Naib Tehsildar, courts below have passed the order for correction of map. He also submitted that in the impugned order, there is no mention that the plot of the petitioner will be affected in any manner, as such, the petitioner has no cause of action to challenge the impugned order dated 27.8.2018 and the writ-petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the records.
There is no dispute about the fact that the application under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been filed at the instance of the mother of contesting respondent nos. 6 to 8 and the same has been allowed by the Additional Collector / respondent no.3. The revision filed against the order of the Additional Collector by the petitioner has been dismissed.
So far as the arguments of counsel for the contesting respondent to the effect that the writ petition is defective as respondent no.5 is dead and one of the legal heir of respondent no.5 is not impleaded, is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that although respondent no.5 is dead but his three sons are already on record of the writ petition, as such, the writ petition can be maintained.
The report submitted by the Naib Tahsildar in the proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, mentions that area of plot nos. 141 to 151 is in excess and the area of plot nos. 153 to 157 is deficient on spot, as such, the same requires correction. There is no separate measurement of the petitioners' plot no.151 by the Naib Tahsildar, as such, it cannot be said that area of petitioner's plot is in excess. The order passed by the Additional Collector on the basis of the report of the Naib Tahsildar dated 27.12.2016, cannot be maintained in the eye of law.
The petitioner filed revision before the revisional court against the order of the Additional Collector, taking specific ground in respect of his plot no.161 but the revision has been dismissed by cryptic order, without considering the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and the report of the Naib Tahsildar dated 27.12.2016 has been made basis for dismissing the revision of the petitioner.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 23.8.2022 and 27.8.2018, passed by respondent nos. 2 & 3 respectively are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remanded back before the respondent no.3 to decide Case No.955/2018 (Computerized Case No.D2017165300955) (Vimla Devi vs. State of U.P.), under Section 30 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 afresh after affording opportunity of proper hearing to both the parties as well as after calling fresh report of the revenue authority, in accordance with law. The aforementioned case shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 3.1.2023 C.Prakash