Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rajveer & Others v. Sub Divisional Magistrate & Others - WRIT - C No. 16084 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8228 (24 April 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).




Rajveer and others...........................................Petitioners.


Sub Divisional magistrate Dadri, Dsitrict Gautam Budh nagar and others..........................................................Respondents.

Hon. S.N.Srivastava, J.

By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.1.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar whereby entries recorded in the computerized Khatauni in the names of petitioners were expunged.

The cynosure of attention in the instant petition is the plot bearing No. 235 (Old No. 137) admeasuring 6 Bighas, 9 Biswas and 12 Biswansi which according to the facts on record was admittedly Gaon Sabha land and the same came to be recorded on 22.2.1980 in the name of Mukhtar Hussain son of Chaman, Syed Murtaza son of Ashfaq Husain and Masoom Raza son of Moazzam Raza ostensibly without any order by any competent authority or without basis of any valid title. It would appear from the record that the said entry was found fictitious and forged by reason of the fact that there was no order for such allotment in favour of the above-mentioned persons nor was there any indicium on record to show that they acquired any right otherwise over the land in question. It would further appear that after embarking on enquiry, the Sub Divisional officer, Dadri expunged the entries vide order dated 26.7.2001. It would further transpire from the record that on the basis of forged entries, the aforesaid persons entered into a compromise with petitioners' father namely, Tara Chand and consequently an order was passed on 16.1.1997 by Deputy Director Consolidation by which plot in question was assigned to the petitioners in lieu of plot no. 343 having an area of 1 Bigha, 16 Biswa. It would further crystallize from the record that in compliance, Consolidation officer by its order-dated 19.8.2000 levied implementation to the said order dated 16.1.1997. It was in the above perspective that the Sub Divisional officer Dadri by the impugned order, expunged the petitioners' names from the computerized Khatauni.  

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners began his submissions by canvassing that by the impugned order, entry made in computerized Khatauni which was in petitioners' favour, was erroneously expunged further arguing that they had been rightly allotted chak on plot no. 137 during consolidation proceeding and by this reckoning they acquired title over the land in dispute. It was further canvassed that the impugned order expunging petitioners' names is impaired in law besides the same being one having been passed militating against the principles of natural justice and without giving opportunity of hearing to them. Per contra, learned standing counsel contended that the land in question was Gaon Sabha property which was covertly got allotted in their chak on the basis of compromise with Masoom Raza who in fact had no title on the land in question and that on the basis of a forged entry, the petitioners had no right to get the land allotted in their chak during consolidation proceedings.

I have bestowed my anxious consideration the submissions aforesaid and have also scrutinized the materials on record.

The facts which brook no dispute are that the plot in question was Gaon Sabha property and which was never allotted by Gaon Sabha to Masoom Raza son of Muazzam, Syed Murtaza son of Ashfaq Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain son of Chaman. There is no indicium on record that the petitioners or for matter of that, any of the persons drew attention to any order or materials on record as the basis of entries of their names against the plot in question. From a close scrutiny of materials on record, the conclusion is irresistible that reaping benefit of forged entry in the revenue record, the petitioners got the land in dispute allotted in their chak during consolidation proceedings by making a collusive combination and by founding their claims on compromise allegedly consummated between the petitioners and Masoom Raza and others. I have also dwelt upon the validity of the compromise deed. Having considered the matter in its pros and cons, I am of the view that the compromise was a void document and it was not capable of conferring any right to petitioners in land in dispute regard being had to the fact that the land in question was inceptionally a Gaon Sabha property and it has not been indicated by any documentary evidence how Masoom Raza and others acquired their rights over the property in question and by this reckoning any person on the basis of said compromise cannot be said to have acquired in title over the land in dispute. I have also scanned the enquiry report prepared by the Sub Divisional officer and there is nothing clinching on the record to differ with the conclusions arrived by the said authority in his enquiry report. In my considered view, the Sub Divisional officer Dadri rightly expunged the entries made in computerized Khatauni pertaining to 1412 F to 1417 Fasli by means of the impugned order dated 30.1.2006.

I would examine the matter from another angle also in order to ascertain the tenability of the claims of the petitioners. The irony of situation in the instant case would appear to be that the petitioners was given a land of a bigger area i.e. 6 Bigha, 9 Biswa and 12 Dhoor as against their original plot no. 496, which only admeasured one Bigha and 16 Biswas. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners were rightly allotted such a big chunk of land having an area of 6 Bigha 9 Biswa and 12 Dhoor as against plot having a meagre area admeasuring 1 Bigha 16 Biswa only. This bears testimony to the fact that petitioners covertly entered into compromise with Masoom Raza and others for their own benefits and by this reckoning, the petitioners cannot be said to have acquired any right, title over the land in dispute merely on the basis of compromise dated 16.1.1997 which was void ab initio as held above. In the above conspectus, there appears to be no error of law apparent on the face of record and therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

In the result, the petition is dismissed accordingly.

It is disquieting to note that incidence of the kind using ploy of getting names recorded in the revenue record without any valid basis has been on the increase to the detriment of State property. It should be noted that such incidence give rise to unnecessary litigation further cluttering up the already staggering arrears on the docket of the Court. It should also be noted with concern that such incidences of illegal entries in the revenue record have been recurring with sickening regularity ostensibly with active connivance of the officials that be, holding charge of the office at that time. It is a matter to be considered seriously by all concerned how to stem the tide of such incidence. In my considered view, it would be in the fitness of things if a foolproof mechanism is evolved by the government, which may act as a safeguard against such incidence. It has often been seen that whenever any act of omission or commission is detected or comes to light, concerned government servant is often meted out kid-glove treatment and he is let off with such action, which, by no reckoning could be said to be deterrent against recurrence of grave misconduct like the present one. In the circumstances, it is high time the authorities addressed themselves to evolving of such effective measures against recrudescence of such incidence everywhere all over the state.  As held above, the incidence of illegal entries recorded in the names of Masoom Raza and others cannot be said to have occurred without tacit approval or it would not be too much to say, without active connivance of the officials concerned and in the circumstances, the officials who was then holding charge of the office must be identified and dealt with sternly.

Coming to the present case, it having been held that illegal entries have come to be recorded in the names of the petitioners with the active connivance of officials concerned, a stern and deterrent action is called for. It is settled by catena of decision that Courts cannot be mere passive pronouncer of judgment which may look the other way when things are ill-done.  Therefore, I feel called to direct that concerned officials should be identified and be visited with criminal prosecution alongwith the benefactors of such entries namely, Mukhtar Hussain, Syed Murtaza and Masoom Raza by lodging appropriate complaint and in case they are found to have been in actual possession on the basis of forged entry mentioned in the body of judgment it would then be open to the District Magistrate in this regard to visit the aforesaid persons with the penalties of law by assessing compensation to be imposed and recovered from the persons concerned in accordance with law. It may be clarified that in case petitioners are found to have in actual possession and consequently compensation is assessed, in that event out of the compensation so quantified, half of the amount shall be recovered from the aforesaid persons while remaining half amount may accordingly be recovered personally from the salaries of the officials who may be identified to have interacted covertly with the aforesaid persons in incorporating their names in the revenue record in addition to initiating disciplinary action against such officials departmentally.

Office is directed to communicate the order to Collector Gautam Budh Nagar for compliance accordingly within a week from today.





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


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 |

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