High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
R.J. Dubey v. A.D.M. - WRIT - C No. 17246 of 1988  RD-AH 3572 (15 February 2006)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.17246 OF 1988
Ram Janam Dubey ... .Petitioner
Additional District Magistrate (E), Varanasi
And others. Opposite parties
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
This petition has been filed against an order dated 21,8,88 passed by the Additional District Magistrate on a Revision filed by the Gaon Sabha, being Revision No.43 of 1987.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he was the owner of the Abadi Plot No.442/42 Village Phutia, Pargana, Narwan Tahsil, Chandauli, District Varanasi. The petitioner was served with a notice under Form 49 under the provisions of Section 122 (B) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for his ejectment over the said plot. The petitioner filed his objections and according to him, by an order dated 24.6.66 a notice under Form-49 A was discharged. Thereafter, another order was passed in favour of the petitioner, which is undated and appended as Annexure-2 by which, a notice under Section 49-A was discharged. But an order was discharged that the petitioner would establish his title by way of a Civil Suit within a period of three months. The petitioner states that he was not able to file a suit and one Shri Radhey Shyam filed a Revision against the said order. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Revision could not have been filed by Radhey Shyam and the Revision so filed was not maintainable and without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 122 (B) 4a. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any person aggrieved under the aforesaid provision is a term, which confined to the land management Committee. The Committee of Gaon Sabha by resolution can file a Revision. The Revision filed by a stranger would not be maintainable. For this purpose, he has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court as reported in 1996 A.W.C. 1035 wherein it has been held that it is well settled that where a procedure for the purpose of a particular Act has been prescribed, the same has to be got done in that manner or not at all.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a decision of this Court as reported in 2005 R.D.(99) 801 wherein this Court has held it is a requirement of Section 122 B that this Section can be initiated only after a resolution has been passed by the Land Management Committee and cannot be filed by the Pradhan directly. In the absence of a resolution of the Land Management Committee, no Revision can be filed. The petitioner has argued that because the revision as filed by a stranger, the matter has become subjudice before the Revisional Authority and he has prevented from getting his right or title declared in the suit.
There is no difficulty in explaining the preposition of law as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, but then, the contentions as raised by learned Standing Counsel also has substance and force.
Learned Standing Counsel has argued that provisions of Sub-section 4-D of Section 122(B) permit any person aggrieved by a order of an Assistant Collector to file a suit in the Court of the competent jurisdiction to establish the right gained by such property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has replied that he was not aggrieved by the order but rather he has to follow it. The Revision has been filed by a complete stranger to the case. Nevertheless, there is no doubt about the fact that provisions of Section 4 D of the Act permitted the petitioner to file a suit to establish his right and that indicate the order which has been passed.
Even if the revision was not maintainable, the provisions of Section 122 (B) lead in totality in no way suggest that because a Revision was filed by a strange, the petition had become ineligible to file a suit. He could have and should have filed a suit to establish his title. But the petitioner did not do so. Therefore, it seems that the petitioner acquiesced in the matter and was pursuing remedies sought by others, which were without jurisdiction and allowed an order also to be passed in the said Revision.
The present petition is pending since 1988. The petitioner is yet to establish his title. The petition does not disclose in any way that the petitioner has established his title over the property in dispute. On the other hand, the Revisional Order, which has been challenged, contains the finding of facts against the petitioner that he managed to get entries against his favour on the basis of interpolation in the record.
In view of these findings of facts, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Revisional Authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in the end, I may add that it shall remain open to the petitioner to establish his title over the said land in appropriate proceedings and, therefore, seek rectification of entries.
The petition is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.
Dated : 15.2.06
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.