Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat submits that the land, in dispute, is recorded as "Shamilat Deh" before or after 26.01.1950. The Appellate Authority has ignored these entries and relied upon forged entries in jamabandi for the year 1944-45, which record that the land is in possession of Mehru and its nature is "Barani". The "Parat Patwar" of the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 records "Shamilat Deh", "Makbuja Malkan", i.e., possession in common of proprietors and the nature of the land as "Kallar". The "Parat Patwar" does not record the name of Mehru, but a copy of the jamabandi prepared from the "Parat Sarkar" records the words "Mehru Hissadar" and the land as "Barani". A bare perusal of the certified copy produced by private respondents, prepared from the "Parat Sarkar", reveals that it has been tampered with by deleting the words "Makbuza Malkan" & "Kallar" and replacing them with the words "Makbuza Malkan Mehru" and "Barani". It is further argued that even if it is presumed that the land, in dispute, was in possession of Mehru, it does not fall within Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act, as there is no evidence of the extent of his share holding and payment of land revenue. It is further submitted that Civil Writ Petition No.15724 of 2010, filed by the private respondents seeking to protect their possession is infructuous as possession was taken by the Gram Panchayat, before the writ petition was filed. The other relief, namely, to record an entry in the revenue record on the basis of order passed by the Joint Development Commissioner and against warrants of possession would have to await the outcome of this writ petition.

by Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act.
The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority, in our considered opinion, is palpably incorrect. The entry in the relevant jamabandi for the year 1944-45, that one Mehru is in possession and as the land is "Barani", it would not automatically exclude it from "Shamilat Deh". The respondents have not adduced any evidence on record that Mehru was a co- sharer, in "Shamilat Deh" and if so to what extent. The extent of share holding is an important factor for proving exclusion of land from "Shamilat Deh" in terms of Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act. This apart, the private respondents have failed to prove payment of land revenue. The jamabandi produced by private respondents, appears to have been tampered with. At this stage, we would like to point out that the original entry is retained by the Patwari and is referred to as the "Parat Patwar". A copy is forwarded to the office of Collector and is called the "Parat Sarkar". The "Parat Patwar" and the "Parat Sarkar" should record the same entries but if, there is any material difference between the "Parat Patwar" and the "Parat Sarkar", the documents would be inherently unreliable. We have perused copies produced by the petitioner and the private respondents and are prima-facie satisfied that copy produced by private respondents "may" have been "interpolated". A copy of the "Parat Patwar" of jamabandi for the year 1944-45, retained by the patwari, does not contain any entry recording the cultivating possession of Mehru as it records the words "Makbuja Malkan"

and describes the land, in dispute, as "Kallar", whereas the copy obtained from the "Parat Sarkar" records "Mehru" in possession as a co-sharer and the land as "Barani". The private respondents are unable to explain this discrepancy. It would be necessary to order an enquiry into the matter. It would also be necessary to point out that in jamabandies prepared after 1944- 45, Mehru and after Mehru, the private respondents are recorded as "tenants". The Appellate Authority failed to discern that a "tenant" cannot take benefit of Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act, which is only available to proprietors.