Allahabad High Court
Ramji Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 21 Others on 2 November, 2020
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17449 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ramji Lal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 21 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Punya Sheel Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri K.K. Mani, Counsel for the Gram Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.02.2003 passed by respondent no.3 and the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by respondent no.2.
It appears that a partition suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act, was decided finally. In the final decree prepared one Natthi Lal was alloted the lot being Khata No.213 which consisted of Plot No.865 area 2 Bigha, 12 Biswa 3 Biswansi from Khata No.213.
It appears that 13 years thereafter, an application for correction of parwana amaldaramad was filed by the contesting respondents on the ground that the earlier parwana amaldaramad issued in pursuance of the final partition decree was incorrect. This application was allowed and the order had been affirmed in revision.
These two orders are under challenged in this writ petition.
Petitioners claim to be purchasers of the entire share of Natthi Lal by means of a registered sale deed, allegedly executed in their favour in the year 1992.
It appears from the record that the petitioner, alleged purchaser, had never applied for their name being recorded in the revenue records consequent to the sale deed of 1992.
I have carefully examined the record as also the amaldaramad made in pursuance of the partition decree and the consequential orders whereby subsequently, parwana amaldaramad has been issued to incorporate the correct revenue entries, by which correction Plot No.1028, which is also shown in the name of the petitioner in Khata No.213 has been ordered to be corrected and the name of Natthi Lal has been ordered to be expunged. This corrected parwana amaldaramad, issued is perfectly inconsonance with the final partition decree, as observed above. Natthi Lal has been given Khata No.213 consisting of Plot No.865 having an area of 2 Bigha, 12 Biswa and 3 Biswansi, only in the final partition decree.
It is therefore clear that Natthi Lal was not entitled to any other land except the above, under the partition decree and since additional land had been shown in his name, the subsequently, issued parwana amaldaramad which excludes the additional land wrongly entered in his name, is perfectly justified.
Only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been passed ex-parte.
In view of the contention raised, this Court directed learned counsel for the petitioners to address the Court as to how he was entitled to any other land apart from Plot No.865M. However, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out anything contrary to what has been observed in the earlier part of this order.
Accordingly, this Court is constrained by the orders impugned, substantial justice has been rendered between the parties.For the same reason, no interference is called for on a technical plea that the petitioner has not been heard. Prior to issuance of a fresh parwana to correct a manifest error in the revenue entry.
Even though, this Court granted an opportunity to show the illegality on the merits of the impugned order, nothing of substance could be pointed out by the petitioners. In the afore-noted facts and circumstances, any remand of the matter to afford petitioners an opportunity of hearing will be an exercise in futility and the orders impugned shall necessarily be maintained even after hearing the petitioner.
Under the circumstance, therefore and since substantial justice which has been done between the parties, no case for interference is made out.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.11.2020 Shivangi