Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DINESH & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dinesh & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 17274 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 318 (5 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17274 of 2004

Dinesh & others Vs.            State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The dispute in this writ petition relates to the certain correction of entries made in the revenue records. Brief facts are that on 13.2.1970 the plots in question were auctioned by the Government under Section 10 (2) (o) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 1950. The said plots were purchased by Indraz Singh and others on the basis of public auction held on 13.2.1970. The sale certificate was issued by the custodian in favour of Indraz Singh and others on 31.12.1976 and the consideration amount of Rs. 4687.36P. was paid before the authority concerned. Pursuant to that on 12.10.1987 the Tahsildar mutated the names of Indraz Singh and others in the revenue records on the basis of the sale certificate issued in their favour. One Kallumal raised objection and filed Appeal No. 2 of 1989 against the aforesaid order of the Tahsildar. The said appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 8.2.1989. The Revision No. 29 of 1988-89 filed by Kallumal against the order dated 8.2.1989 was also dismissed on 18.7.1989 by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The matter regarding the validity of the sale certificate issued in favour of Indraz Singh and others on 31.12.1976 as well as the entries made in the revenue records in their favour thus attained finality.

Thereafter the petitioners purchased the plots in dispute measuring 10 Bighas and 10 Biswansis by registered sale deed dated 10.9.1992 from Indraz Singh and others on payment of consideration of Rs. 1,48,500/-. Pursuant to that the Tahsildar, on 16.12.1992, mutated the names of the petitioners in Mutation Case No. 341 under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 replacing the names of Indraz Singh and others. The petitioners have since then been in possession of the land in dispute. However, after a gap of nearly 10 years the respondent no. 4, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar initiated proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. By the order dated 22.5.2002, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate stayed the operation of the entries made under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act in the revenue records, on the plots in question in favour of the petitioners. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed Revision No. 5 of 2002-03, which has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide his order dated 20.2.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 22.5.2002 and 20.2.2004, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

I have heard Sri C.K.Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

The ground for staying the entries made in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records is that the property in question, being evacuee property, ought to have been in the name of the custodian of the evacuee property and the names of the petitioners and others had been wrongly recorded in the revenue records. The case of the petitioners was decided alongwith the cases of several other persons and thus a general direction with regard to several plots, including that of the petitioner, had been issued by respondent no. 4 by his order dated 20.2.2004. In revision the petitioner had pointed out that the petitioners had purchased the plots in question from the auction purchasers, in whose favour the sale certificate had been issued on 31.12.1976, on the basis of the auction held on 13.2.1970. Such contention of the petitioner has not been considered by the revisional authority and by a cursory order, the revision has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the same grounds as given by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that since "the auction settled in favour of the petitioners was not registered and therefore, the names of the purchasers was wrongly mutated in the revenue records." The case of the petitioners is not that they were auction purchasers. The auction purchasers were Indraz Singh and others. The matter relating to the auction and sale certificate having been issued in favour of Indraz Singh and others had attained finality.  After the names of Indraz Singh and others had been mutated by the Tahsildar on 12.10.1987, the appeal as well as the revision challenging the same, had both been dismissed. The purchase was made by the petitioners from Indraz Singh and others, who were in fact the auction purchasers and not the petitioners. The said sale deed dated 10.9.1992 was duly registered. On the basis of the said registered sale deed, the names of the petitioners had been mutated on 16.12.1992. After a gap of 10 years the respondent-authorities cannot be permitted to stay the entries made in the revenue records under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act under the garb of the powers contained under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. The said powers can be exercised only for making any clerical errors which may have crept-in in the revenue records.

In the present case the petitioners are bonafide purchasers  from the person who had purchased the plots in an auction held by the custodian of the evacuee property. The names of such purchasers (petitioners) from the revenue records cannot be deleted or operation of such order stayed under the provisions of Section 39 of the Land Revenue Act.

Accordingly, the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be quashed. This writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 22.5.2002 and 20.2.2004 passed by the Upzila Adhikari, Gautam Budh Nagar and the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division, Meerut, respondent nos. 4 and 3 respectively are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.  

Dt/-5.1.2006

PS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.