Allahabad High Court
Satya Narayan Gupta vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 5 November, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176314 Court No. - 69 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 310 of 2024 Applicant :- Satya Narayan Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
This is a review petition at the instance of the applicant/writ petitioner, seeking the review of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2967 of 2024 (Satya Narain Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & 4 others) whereby and where-under the writ petition at the instance of the review applicant/writ petitioner/complainant was held to be maintainable against the order rejecting his Appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but the writ petition was held to be devoid of merits and, accordingly, dismissed on the ground that there existed no good ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
It has been argued that the Court was required to rule on the question of maintainability of the writ petition only and it proceeded to decide the writ petition on merits having ruled in favour of the writ petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and as such the order dismissing the writ petition on merits is liable to be reviewed.
In the opinion of the Court the ground urged by learned counsel for the review applicant/writ petitioner cannot be a ground for review and the review petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold. However, in the interest of justice the learned counsel for the review applicant/ writ petitioner has been permitted to address the Court on merits also.
I have heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the review applicant/writ petitioner, Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4, the Gram Sabha concerned and have perused the record.
It has been argued that proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated on the complainant of the petitioner against the Respondent No. 5 on the strength of a report dated 17.12.2017 which reported the Respondent No. 5 to have illegally occupied Arazi No. 227 situated in Mauja Mainur, Patti Chaubisiha, Tehsil Chakia, District Chandauli recorded a 'Kot' (Gaon Sabha Land) and raised constructions thereon. The Respondent No. 5 put in appearance in the proceedings and filed his objections stating that the proceedings under Section 67 were unwarranted and constructions were raised over an old abadi of the village over which the Kothi of Respondent No. 5 existed. Since in the notice in RC Form 20 reference to Arazi No. 227 was made the objections were filed referring to Arazi No. 227. However, subsequently an amendment was filed stating that constructions existed over Arazi No 225 and not over 227. The amendment was allowed. Subsequently, a fresh inspection was carried out by the Revenue Authorities on 01.06.2023 and a Report was submitted wherein it was found that the constructions were found to exist over Arazi No. 225, which was the Bhumidhari of the Respondent No. 5 and not over Arazi No. 227, which was Goan Sabha Land. The proceedings were accordingly dropped and Notice in RC Form 20 was directed to be withdrawn vide order dated 01.07.2023 of the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar Chakia, District Chandauli. The order dated 01.07.2023 was upheld in Appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code against which the writ petition giving rise to the present review proceedings was filed.
Learned counsel for the review applicant/writ petitioner has argued that in the objections filed to the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 the Respondent No. 5 had admitted that constructions were raised over Arazi N. 227. The said admission was, however, permitted to be withdrawn by allowing the amendment. It is contended that allowing the amendment to the objections was contrary to law and ought not to have been permitted. Since the Respondent N. 5 had admitted the constructions to exist over Arazi No. 227 which admittedly was Goan Sabha Land the proceedings were not liable to be dropped. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court reported in 2024(3) AWC 2602 (Smt. Kinder Jeet Kaur and Another Vs. Karam Jeet Singh) and certain decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Judge) to buttress the point that admission could not be withdrawn.
The Court is not at all impressed by the submissions of learned counsel for the review applicant/writ petitioner. The reliance upon the decision cited is completely misplaced and has no applicability to the present case. In the opinion of the Court, it is not a case of withdrawal of an admission by the Respondent No. 5 as has been argued. The defence of the Respondent No. 5 in his objections all throughout has been that constructions do not exist over Goan Sabha Land. This fact has not been withdrawn. The subsequent report dated 01.06.2023 of the Revenue Team has found the alleged constructions to exist over Arazi No. 225 and not 227. There is no challenge to the order allowing the amendment. Moreover, the review applicant/writ petitioner could not demonstrate how the subsequent report dated 0106.023 is bad in law.
It is settle law that power of review cannot be exercised as an Appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which mere looking at the record should strike and should not require any long drawn process of reasoning.
In view of the above, I find no good ground to review the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024. There is no merit in this Review Petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.
Order Date :- 5.11.2024 pks