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


Tikam Singh v. Rajendra Pal Singh And Others - WRIT - C No. 20869 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 139 (10 January 2005)


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).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

  This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned orders dated 20.2.2000 and 24.4.2000 (Annexures 6 and 8 to the writ petition) passed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 respectively.

The facts, in brief, as culled out from the record, are that the Land Management Committee of village Jhilmila, Pargana and Tahsil Nagina, district Bijnore  resolved to allot a land to allegedly 11 landless persons for agricultural purposes.  Smt. Sukhia, mother of the petitioner, was also one of the allotees of pattas of plot nos. 212 and 213 in pursuance of the resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 15.8.1994.  The petitioner- Tikam Singh was a member of the Land Management Committee at the relevant point of time and he was also signatory to the resolution.  The Lekhpal submitted his report on 15.8.1994 for allotment of land to the Tahsildar which was, in turn forwarded  by him to Sub Divisional Officer on 4.12.1994.  The report was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 30.1.1995 and the land was allotted accordingly to the proposed allotees.

One Suraj Singh and 7 others moved an application dated 22.8.1995, which is appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, for cancellation of the pattas.   It is relevant to mention here that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition are said to be cousins of Suraj Singh who had moved the aforesaid application dated 22.8.1995 for cancellation of pattas.. The aforesaid application was dismissed in default on 30.10.1996 against which no remedy was preferred and it became final.

Respondent nos. 1 to 3 thereafter moved another application on 8.1.1998 on the same grounds as in the application dated 22.8.1995 moved by Suraj Singh and others for cancellation of the patta of Smt. Sukhia, mother of the petitioner.  Smt. Sukhia in the meantime died.  Tikam Singh- the petitioner filed objection under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the Deputy Collector on 19.5.1998 inter alia that he had not exerted any influence on the Land Management Committee for allotment of the land to his mother who was living separately and that the land allotted to her was not a public way .   The Collector by order dated 20.2.2000 rejected the application of the respondents on the ground that patta allotted to the mother of the petitioner was an Asami patta which had expired after three years as provided in Rule 176-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules').  

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land allotted to him was not an asami patta but was a non transferable Bhumidhari class II.  He  submits that one Udai Raj Singh- respondent no. 2, alleged to be cousin of Suraj Singh, who had land adjacent to the land allotted to Smt. Sukhia, mother of the petitioner, moved an application for demarcation of the plot without impleading the petitioner as party.  The application for demarcation being case no. 15 of 2000 was approved by the Pargana Adhikari on 8.11.2000.  Aggrieved, the petitioner moved an appeal to the Commissioner being Appeal No. Nil of 1999/2000.  The Commissioner, by his order dated 11.12.2000 stayed the operation of the order dated 8.11.2000 passed by Pargana Adhikari approving the demarcation.  Thereafter a report was submitted by the Kanoongo in collusion with Suraj Singh.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Kanoongo had no occasion to submit any report and he proceeded without any authority by filing report dated 15.12.2000, which is contained in Annexure C.A-4 to the Counter Affidavit. He further submits that in the report of the Lekhpal, plot nos. 212 and 213 which were allotted to the mother of the petitioner- Smt. Sukhia, were shown as 'Rasta' in Khasra and Khatauni of 1408 and 1410 Fasli.  But after the report of the Kanoongo, Khasra and Khatauni did not show any 'Rasta'.  He also submits that except in the Khasra and Khatauni of 1408 and 1410 Fasli, no 'Rasta' was shown in plot nos. 212 and 213.  According to him, this established that the report as well as entries in Khasra and Khatauni of 1408 and 1410 Fasli were prepared in collusion with ulterior motive as '''Rasta'' was not shown in any Khasra or Khatauni before 1408 Fasli and after 1410 Fasli when the new Kanoongo took over charge.

Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the court to the Annexures 6,8, 11 and 12 to the rejoinder affidavit.  On the basis of the aforesaid documents he contends that the Collector had wrongly held that plot nos. 212 and 213, allotted to Smt. Sukhia- mother of the petitioner were asami class III patta and on the contrary they are class II- non transferable Bhumidhari pattas.  According to him, it is evident from the aforesaid Annexures that it was class II Navin Parti non transferable Bhumidhari land. He has  also placed reliance in this regard on Form No. 58 appended with the rejoinder affidavit.

He lastly  urged that two suits were filed in respect of allotment- one by Rajendra Pal Singh - respondent no. 2 being suit no. 965 of 1995 and the other by Smt. Azizan- respondent no. 3 being suit no. 966 of 1995.  Suit No. 966 of 1995 filed by Smt. Azizan- respondent no. 3 was dismissed in default by judgement dated 15.9.2003 (Annexure 7 to the rejoinder affidavit), which has attained finality as no appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgement.  Suit no. 965 of 1995 filed by Rajendra Pal Singh is said to be pending.

Counsel for the respondents- Sri T.S. Dabas submits that the land could not have been allotted by Land Management Committee to Smt. Sukhia, mother of the petitioner, as he was a member of the Land Management Committee and had participated in the proceedings for allotment of land to his mother-Smt. Sukhia.  He states that the land was allotted to other 10 persons with a view to conceal the factum of influence exerted by him as member of the Land Management Committee to his mother. He further states that even otherwise, the land could not have been allotted to Smt. Sukhia as it was public way.  He submits that apart from the Khasras, which have been annexed by the respondents, this fact is also proved by Annexure R.A-4. which is an affidavit of Krishna Pal Singh, who is the present Pradhan.  He supported the orders passed by the authorities below by contending that the life of the patta allotted to Smt. Sukhia could not be more than 5 years as provided in Rule 176-A of the Rules.

Counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal submits that Krishna Pal Singh is real brother of Rajendra Pal Singh -respondent no. 1 and he, in collusion with respondent no. 1 has given the aforesaid affidavit in suit no. 965 of 1995.

I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and the Standing Counsel.  The admitted facts are that Smt. Sukhia is no more alive and the patta was allotted to her for a period of three years. The fact that whether it was an asami patta or class II non transferable Bhumidhari land is now irrelevant, in as much as, if it was an asami patta, it could not subsist for more than five years in pursuance of Rule 176-A of the Rules and if it was a non-transferable Bhumidhari land, it would vest in the State after death of Smt. Sukhia.  The revision of the petitioner before the Commissioner has also been dismissed on the ground that it was an asami patta and could remain in force only for five years as provided in Rule 176-A of the Rules.  Thus, both the authorities below have held that Smt. Sukhia was given an asami patta.  The petition is not maintainable by the petitioner.  he also has no locus standi in the matter in view of the reasons given above.  The writ petition has become infructuous by efflux of time.  Rights of Smt. Sukhia, mother of the petitioner, in these circumstances cannot be determined now.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.  The interim order passed by this court on 23.2.2002 is hereby vacated. No order as to costs.

Dated 10.1.2005



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.