Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUKH RAM AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mukh Ram And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 18402 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 3185 (26 February 2007)

 

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

Judgement Reserved on 12.2.2007

Judgement Delivered on 26.2.2007

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18402 of 1985

Mukh Ram and others Versus State of U.P and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

This writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R Act  in respect of plot No. 36 area 0.82 acres and plot No. 37 area 3.09 acres. The case was registered as case no. 54 of 1983-84 Gram Sabha Bajua Vs. Mukh Ram and others on the file of Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector I Class Tehsil Chhata, district Mathura. Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector I Class Tehsil Chhata district Mathura decided the matter on 29.6.1984 (or 26.9.1984) . Through the said order eviction was directed and damages were also imposed. Against the said order revision was filed which was registered as Case No. 108 of 1984-85. Additional Collector, Mathura dismissed the revision on 16.10.1985, hence this writ petition.

The defence of the petitioners was that the land in dispute had been allotted to them by the Land Management Committee in 1965. Petitioners had filed a suit against Girwar and others before Civil Court being OS No. 370 of 1981. In the said suit the allegation was that plot No. 36 was allotted by Gaon Sabha to plaintiff No. 1 and 2 and plot No. 37 was allotted to plaintiff No. 3 by Baldeo Singh, Pradhan. It appears that in the said suit Gaon Sabha was not made party. Even the defendants of the said suit did not appear and the suit was decreed exparte on 21.7.1982 by Munsif,  copy of the said judgement has been filed as Annexure SA 2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 4.12.2006.

It further appears that for cancellation of some Patta in favour of the petitioners, Pradhan initiated proceedings for cancellation of Patta against petitioners. The matter came up to Board of Revenue Allahabad in the form of Second Appeal No. 212 of 1973-74 which was decided on 21.10.1981 and matter was remanded. A photocopy of certified copy of an order dated 7.11.1989 has been filed. The said order appears to have been passed by A.D.M Mathura in case No. 80 of 1989-90--57/80/89-90 in which opposite parties are Babu and others. Through the said order case was dismissed in default of plaintiff. No other document pertaining to the said case has been filed.

Through order dated 7.11.2006, petitioner was directed to file supplementary affidavit annexing therewith certain documents including order of Board of Revenue dated 21.10.1981. Supplementary affidavit has been filed but copy of the said order has not been annexed therewith.

It appears that in the year 1989 the land in dispute was allotted to Bihari and others. In respect of the said land in 1989 petitioners filed an application for cancellation of Patta against Bihari and others under section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.L.R Act. The case was registered as case no. 27 of 1993-94. Additional Collector (Administration), Mathura through order dated 31.8.1994 cancelled the Patta in favour of Bihari and others. Bihari and others are not parties in this writ petition. Copy of order dated 31.8.1994 has been annexed alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 4.12.2006. In the said order, it is also mentioned that in view of stay order passed in this writ petition petitioners shall not be dispossessed until final order of the High Court. From this sentence it appears that petitioners' case of allotment in their favour was not found to be correct. Patta of Bihari and others was cancelled on the ground that on the date of allotment petitioners were in possession and Gaon Sabha was not in possession.

In the impugned orders under section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R Act it is mentioned that from the revenue records filed by Gaon Sabha it was clear that name of the petitioner was not recorded in the revenue records. In respect of order of Board of Revenue dated 21.10.1981, it was mentioned that no plot number was mentioned therein. Unfortunately inspite of time being granted by this court copy of order of Board of Revenue has not been filed. Accordingly no fault can be found with the findings of the courts below that in the judgement of Board of Revenue land in dispute was not involved. Kubuliyat photocopy of which was filed by the petitioner in support of their claim of allotment was found to be inadmissible. The revisional court also observed that in the objections petitioners stated that lease was executed in their favour by Gaon Sabha in the year 1965 while photocopy of the Kubuliyat showed that the so called lease was executed in the year 1966.

Revisional court further held that valid allotment in favour of petitioners was not proved by any records of L.M.C and that neither it was stated nor proved that original Kubiliyat had been lost or destroyed hence photocopy was not admissible in the evidence.

I do not find any error in the impugned orders. Petitioner could not prove that the matter which was remanded by the Board of Revenue related to the land in dispute . Copy of order dated 7.11.1989 placed on record is only of three lines dismissing the case in default of plaintiff. It does not contain any particulars. It can not be said that the land in dispute was subjudice in the said case. In any case the case was dismissed in default. In the Civil suit Gaon Sabha was not the party.

Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.

Dated: 26.2.2007

Waqar


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.