High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Chhatravati v. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad & Others - WRIT - C No. 59748 of 2006  RD-AH 721 (11 January 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59748 of 2006.
Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad & others.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the revisional authority dated 25th July, 2006, whereby the revisional authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Collector dated 30th November, 2005 by which the Collector has set aside the order dated 15th January, 1996 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer.
The facts of the present case are that the petitioner has been served with a notice by the competent authority as to why she should not be evicted from the land in dispute, which is recorded as land sub-merged with water in the revenue record. The petitioner submitted objection and stated that petitioner's ancestral house was there on the plot in dispute which she has recently got re-constructed and this being the position, the land in dispute shall be deemed to have been settled in favour of the petitioner under Section 123 (1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (In short 'the Act') by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer concerned. The Assistant Collector/Tehsildar on the basis of revenue record found that the land in dispute is recorded in Column 6 (1) and has been shown as sub-merged with water, therefore the same could not have been allotted under Section 123 (1) of 'the Act' in favour of any person, including the petitioner even by the Gaon Sabha and thus submitted report before the Collector. The petitioner filed her objection and submitted that once the land in dispute has been settled in favour of the petitioner, no proceedings can be initiated for its cancellation. The Collector considered the matter and after hearing the petitioner set aside the order dated 15th January, 1996 by which the land in dispute has been settled in favour of the petitioner by the then Sub Divisional Officer concerned and directed ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute vide its order dated 30th November, 2005.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector dated 30th November, 2005, the petitioner preferred a revision before the
Commissioner/revisional authority that the authority has no jurisdiction under Section 198 (4) of 'the Act' to cancel the Patta given to the petitioner under Section 123 (1) of 'the Act' and that the land in dispute is not land submerged with water and that it is a Abadi land over which the petitioner's ancestral house was situated as well as there is Abadi surrounding the plot in dispute. The revisional authority after hearing the parties affirmed the findings arrived at by the Collector and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 25th July, 2006. The revisional authority in its order impugned recorded finding that the land in dispute is a land which is covered under column 6 (1) and has been recorded as land sub-merged with water, therefore the same cannot be allotted to anybody, including the petitioner under Section 123 (1) of 'the Act' even by the Gaon Sabha. It further recorded that since the land in dispute is of the nature which is covered in column 6 (1), therefore the question of acquiring any right under Section 123 (1) of 'the Act' does not arise and the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the Collector.
Before this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner advanced same arguments which, as already stated, have been repelled by the trial Court and findings recorded by the trial Court are affirmed by the revisional Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the finding arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court is either perverse, or suffer from any error, much less manifest error of law, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the orders impugned in this petition.
Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed an application for adducing the evidence in support of her case, which has not been decided either by the trial Court or by the revisional Court. The trial Court has dealt with the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner and observed that in view of the entry in the revenue record which has not been disputed with regard to the land in dispute being recorded under Section 132 of 'the Act', no evidence has been adduced contrary to the revenue records. In this circumstance, it is not necessary to permit the petitioner to adduce any further evidence and the petitioner cannot get benefit under Section 123 (1) of 'the Act'. Both the authorities below have dealt with the aforesaid argument advanced on
behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate this proposition of law is not correct therefore in my opinion this argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.