High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Niwas v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - B No. 66693 of 2006  RD-AH 20772 (8 December 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66693 of 2006
State of U. P. and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri V. B. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated 14.11.2005 passed by Tehsildar rejecting application filed by petitioner for cross examination of deponent of affidavits filed by contesting respondents in support of recall application as well as revisional order dated 28.8.2006 rejecting revision challenging the said order.
Facts are that contesting respondents moved an application dated 20.12.2004 to recall the order dated 15.3.2003 passed by Tehsildar allowing application filed by petitioner under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act for mutation of his name. Contesting respondents also filed affidavits of one Sher Mohammad, Peon of Nazarat Tehsil Aanwala and one Jai Pal as evidence in support of recall application. After the said two affidavits were brought on record, petitioner moved application dated 23.10.2006 to summon the deponent of the said affidavits for cross examination. Application was filed on the ground that both deponent informed him that they had never given any affidavit and the said two affidavits are forged and fabricated. Tehsildar vide order dated 14.11.2005 dismissed the application. Aggrieved, petitioner went up in revision before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.8.2006.
It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have committed mistake in rejecting application of petitioner for cross examination of deponent of two affidavits. It has further been urged by learned counsel for petitioner that once affidavits have been taken on record, opportunity to cross examine the deponent could not have been refused.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
There is no manner of doubt that proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature. In any view of the matter, once the deponent of the two affidavits informed the petitioner, as alleged by him, that they had never given any affidavit, petitioner could have filed their affidavits in rebuttal. It is thus clear that application for cross examination was filed by petitioner in order to delay disposal of restoration application.
I find no illegality in the impugned orders rejecting application filed by petitioner.
Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.