Allahabad High Court
Smt. Roop Rani Soni vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 3 April, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27483 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1959 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Roop Rani Soni Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Gopal Tripathi,Atma Ram Verma,Shivam Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Kumar Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri M.G. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the Collector, Gonda thereby complying with the directions of this Court dated 16.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 24381 (MB) of 2019 where it was directed that representation of the petitioner dated 24.09.2018 be decided within a time provided by this Court.
3. The dispute arisen in the present case has arisen on passing of the order passed by the Lekhpal on 22.06.1994 where it stated that Triveni S/o Tulsi Sonar died without any legal heir and accordingly the land vested in the State Government and a proclamation in this regard issued by the Tehsildar inviting objections.
4. Mahadeo Prasad S/o Surya Kant appeared and contested the said notice on the basis of a will executed by Triveni. Considering the aforesaid will, mutation orders were passed in favour of Mahadeo Prasad on 22.06.1994 which attained finality and was not assailed by any time thereafter. The name of Mahadeo Prasad continued to be entered in the revenue records till a complaint was made before the Collector on 28.08.1995 stating that the entry made in favour of Mahadeo Prasad was collusive and fictitious and accordingly the said entry should be deleted.
5. The Collector, Gonda on the basis of aforesaid complaint got the matter investigated and obtained a report from the Tehsildar, Tulsipur who submitted a report and on the basis of said report, an order 27.10.1995 was passed deleting the name of Mahadeo Prasad from the revenue records. No notice or opportunity of hearing was given to Mahadeo Prasad and accordingly against the order dated 27.10.1995 an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad. Initially the order of the Collector dated 27.10.1995 was stayed by means of order dated 08.04.1996.
6. In the meanwhile, one Mangal Prasad and Durga Prasad had filed a suit under Section 229 B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act claiming themselves to be the owners of the said land in which the name of the petitioner had been mutated. The said suit was dismissed on 02.06.2009 and against the said order, no appeal was filed and the same attained finality. It has further been submitted that Mangal Prasad S/o Thakur Prasad died on 06.08.2010. The Additional Commissioner, Faizabad finally decided the appeal of the petitioner by means of order dated 27.10.2009 and he held that against the order under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act where the name of the individual has been mutated on the basis of a will, such an order can be challenged only in an appeal before the higher authority and not by an application under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Code.
7. Accordingly, the appellate authority held that the Collector did not have any jurisdiction interfere in the order passed under Secton 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and accordingly quashed the order passed by the Collector dated 27.10.1995. Despite the order of the Commissioner dated 27.10.2009 setting aside the order oated 27.10.1995, the revenue records were not corrected despite repeated representations given by the petitioner and still continued to be recorded as Naveen Parti.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petiton being Writ Petition No. 24381 of 2019 where this Court by means of order dated 16.09.2019 directed the District Magistrate to take a decision on the representation /application submitted by the petitioner petitioner on 24.09.2018 within a period of two months from the date of receiving of a certified copy of said order.
9. Despite the order having been passed by this Court no decision was taken by the Collector and accordingly a contempt petiton being was preferred before this Court being CAPL No. 1739/2019 which was dismissed by this Court after noticing that the orders of the Division Bench of this Court has been complied with.
10. The District Magistrate has passed an impugned order in compliance of the order passed by this Court. While passing the said order, the District Magistrate, has looked into the entire revenue records made with regard to Gata No. 774. He has stated that Mahadeo Prasad has already died on 06.08.2010 and accordingly no entry can be made in favour of a person who has already died and according directed that the name of Triveni be entered in the revenue records.
11. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is clear that necessary orders were passed with regard to the mutation in favour of the petitioner on 22.06.1994 which order became final and was never assailed by any individual. There is no dispute that some stranger had filed a complaint against the order petitioner stating that mutation in his name had been fraudulently recorded.
12. The question before this Court is as to whether the Collector could have himself examined the entire revenue record and pass a detailed order with regard to mutation of the entry in the revenue records ignoring the order of the Commissioner dated 27.10.1995.
13. Collector, Gonda, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had deleted his name from the revenue records and directed recording against the said plot as Navin Parti. The said order was set aside by the Collector in appeal on 27.10.2009 and consequently no effect can be given by the authorities to the order passed by the Collector on 27.10.1995. Once the Commissioner had set aside the order of the Collector, Gonda then status quo ante was supposed to be made and all the entries existing prior to the order dated 27.10.1995 was ought to have been restored.
14. Undoubtedly, the name of petitioner had already mutated. The predecessor of the petitioner should have been recorded on 22.06.1994 and consequently the Collector Gonda ought to have complied with the said order and passed necessary orders for recording the name of Mahadeo Prasad S/o Surya Kant.
15. A pointed query made to learned Standing Counsel to indicate that as to under which provision the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 has been passed. It has fairly been submitted that the said order has been passed in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 16.07.2019.
16. This Court has considered the arguments of the petitioner as well as learned standing Counsel.
17. The grievance raised before this Court by the petitioner was only with regard to recording the name of Mahadeo Prasad which was done as per the order dated 22.06.1994 inasmuch as the subsequent order passed by the Collector, Gonda on 27.10.1995 has been set aside by the Commissioner by order dated 27.102009. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts and this Court is of the considered view that there was no occasion for the District Magistrate to have taken a different view than what was already existing on records prior to passing of his order dated 27.10.1995.
18. The order has been passed by the District Magistrate only in compliance of the order of this Court dated 16.09.2019/23.09.2019, where he was directed to decide representation of the petitioner. It is further noticed that representation of petitioner was confined only to compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner dated 27.10.2009.
19. It is in the aforesaid facts that the Collector merely on the basis of the application of petitioner, has proceeded to re-examine the entire records and pass fresh order pertaining to entry in the revenue records. No such direction was issued by this Court to pass the such order as has passed by the Collector, and he had to merely comply with the order passed by the Commissioner dated 27.10.1995 passed in favour of the petitioner. The Collector in his impugned order has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction by re-examining the entire issue. The order is clearly illegal and arbitrary.
20. This Court is of the considered view that where ever directions are given by the Courts to the authorities for deciding the pending representation, then orders can be passed by the authority only in accordance with law.
21. In the present case, only appropriate orders could have been passed by the Collector, in compliance of the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 27.10.2009. Merely on the basis of representation he could not have undertaken fresh exercise and pass detailed order which is totally uncalled for, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and such order is not even relatable to any provision of law nor any such provision can be indicated by learned Standing Counsel.
22. Accordingly, the order dated 04.11.2020 is without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly set aside. The order of the Commissioner dated 27.10.2009 has attained finality and accordingly the status as existing prior to 27.10.1995 is restored.
23. In light of the aforesaid discussions, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tulsipur, District Balrampur is directed to pass appropriate orders in light of the order dated 22.06.1994 passed by Tehsildar Tulsipur expeditiously, say, within a maximum period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him in accordance with law.
24. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 3.4.2024 Ravi/