High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mst. Dassi Devi v. A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue) & Others - WRIT - C No. 31796 of 1999  RD-AH 8674 (8 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31796 of 1999
Mst. Dassi Devi vs. Additional District Magistrate, (Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur and others
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Consolidation proceedings in the area in question were concluded on 9.4.1977 on which date notification under Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued which signals conclusion of the proceedings. For 22 years i.e. uptil 1999 the name of petitioner continued in the revenue record over the land in dispute. However, A.D.M.(Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur on 24.5.1999 passed an order for expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue records over the plots in dispute (plot no.116, 446,1076 and 1438 situate in village Sarauni Paschimpatti, Pargana and Teshsil Kerakat District Jaunpur). The said order was passed without hearing the petitioner and by using the patent word farzi. According to A.D.M.(Finance & Revenue) entries were farzi hence they could be expunged without hearing the person concerned. This writ petition when filed was directed against order dated 24.5.1999. On 25.1.2007 I passed an order in this writ petition (on the order sheet) directing the A.D.M.(Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur to hear the petitioner and pass fresh order. In the said order I mentioned that In Chaturgun vs. State of U.P. 2005 (98) R.D. 511, I had already held that before expunging revenue entry person concerned should be heard. In pursuance of my order dated 25.1.2007 A.D.M.(Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur heard the petitioner and passed fresh order on 28.3.2007 in case no.68. In the said case on behalf of State written statement was filed through Collector, Jaunpur which was signed by A.D.M.(Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur himself who decided the matter. The said order has also been challenged through amendment. The amendment application is allowed. In the order dated 28.3.2007 it is mentioned that notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act was issued on 9.4.1977 and in C.H. Form No.45 which is prepared at the conclusion of the consolidation proceedings name of petitioner was there. However, the A.D.M.(Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur has mentioned that C.H. Form No.23 was not filed. A.D.M.(Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur had himself initiated the proceedings hence he should have examined C.H. Form No.23. Under Section 27 of U.P.C.H. Act a very strong presumption is attached in favour of correctness of entries prepared at the time of conclusion of consolidation. If the Government wanted to challenge the said record it should have led the evidence. Moreover all the records are prepared by State authorities and remain in their possession. A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur should have himself perused C.H. Form No.23. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that there is some cutting and over writing in Khata no.763. The records are maintained by the State Government hence if there is anything wrong with the records State Government itself is responsible for the same. A.D.M.(Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur should have taken action against the officials responsible for preparing and maintaining records. There is no finding that when alteration etc. was made. Since conclusion of consolidation proceedings name of the petitioner was continuing in the revenue records hence it could not be said that petitioner was in any manner responsible for cutting etc. May be there was some genuine error in the records prepared at the time of conclusion of consolidation proceedings hence at that very time records were corrected. The A.D.M. concerned has not mentioned that what was the position of the plots in dispute before start of consolidation. There is no mention in the impugned orders that at any point of time the land in dispute was recorded in the name of gaon sabha.
It may also be mentioned that even in the subsequent order dated 28.3.2007 A.D.M. concerned has again used the favourite word farzi even though in the order it is mentioned that in C.H. Form No.45 name of the petitioner was there. If name of the petitioner was there at the conclusion of consolidation proceedings in the original records and on the basis of that her name continued since then till 1999, then by no stretch of imagination it can be said that entry in her favour was farzi (fake).
Whenever some action is proposed to be taken by revenue authorities on the ground of fake, forged, fraudulent or manipulated entries, first disciplinary proceedings must be initiated against the officers/officials who prepare/maintain the records.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders i.e. order dated 24.5.1999 and 28.3.2007 are set aside (it may be mentioned that Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of amendment application is copy of the order of A.D.M.(Finance & Revenue) which does not contain any date however in several paragraphs sought to be added in the writ petition through amendment the date of the order has been mentioned as 28.3.2007).
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.