Allahabad High Court
Smt. Bhagwati Devi vs State Of U.P. & Others on 19 January, 2010
Author: V.K. Shukla
Bench: V.K. Shukla
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2312 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Bhagwati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Vinod Sinha,Mahesh Sharma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the entries in the Revenue Record in respect of Khasra Plot No.4 area 0.06200 hectare situated in village Shamsham Nagar, Pargana Tehsil Jewar, District Gautambudh Nagar. Further prayer has been made for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to decide her representation dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that gata No.4 area 0.6200 Hectare situated in village Shamsham Nagar, Pargana Tehsil Jewar, District Gautambudh Nagar belongs to her, but on account of change of course of river Yamuna some land of State of U.P. has gone to the State of Haryana and vice versa, and for this purpose a Committee had been constituted. The said committee has given award known as Dixit Award. Petitioner submits that in the said award gata No.3, which was adjoining gata No.4, has gone to the State of Haryana, and gata No.4 remained part of State of U.P., but on account of the mistake of the oficials, the petitioner's plot No.4 has been shown in the State of Haryana. Petitiioner has contended that near her gata No.4 a bundh has been erected over plot Nos. 5 and 6 belonging to the petitioner, which the petitioner had sold to Irrigation Department by means of a registered sale deed dated 24.08.2004. Petitioner has further stated that Jageshwar and others, who are bhumidhars of gata No.3, are interested in taking possession over petitioner's gata No.4, and they are taking undue benefit of the error committed by the officials. Petitioner has submitted that complaint was made to the Collector, who had asked the Tehsildar to submit report after inspection, whereupon report is alleged to have been submitted by the Revenue Inspector. Petitioner has further stated that in spite of the said report her possession is being interfered with by respondent No.4.
By means of present writ petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to restrain respondent No.4, who is a private person, from interfering in her possession. Such a relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be accorded to her, and for this purpose remedy of petitioner lies in filing civil suit.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 19.1.2010 SRY