High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kallu Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - C No. 17664 of 1985  RD-AH 7631 (25 April 2007)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
It transpires that a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Act No.1 of 1961 was issued in the name of all the petitioners. It was however, contended by petitioner No.5 that no notice was served upon her. It is alleged that Devi Dayal was the original tenure holder, who had transferred the land to Kahushlya and Paragiya, the two wives prior to the abolition of the Zamindari and their names were also recorded in the revenue record. A specific objection was taken that the land belonging to Kahushlya and Smt. Paragiya could not be included in the land of Kallu Singh, since they are separate tenure holders whose names had been recorded in the revenue records. The Prescribed Authority without considering the entries in the revenue records has relied upon the statement of the Lekhpal to the effect that Smt. Paragiya was living with the petitioners and therefore, the land was rightly included in the holding of Kallu Singh. The appellate authority has also confirmed the order of the prescribed authority.
However, in my view, the approach adopted by the authorities is totally erroneous. The evidence by way of revenue records cannot be treated lightly and cannot be ignored, merely because a Lekhpal has made some statement. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the prescribed authority to redecide the matter after considering the revenue records.
Since the matter is being remanded back, it is open to the petitioner to raise such other grounds that is available to him now.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.