High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Son Devi & Others v. Addl. Commissioner & Others - WRIT - C No. 11539 of 1997  RD-AH 6617 (29 November 2005)
Court no. 31
Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 11539 of 1997
Smt. Son Devi and others vs. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Agra & others.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioners are owners of plot no. 153 new and old plot no. 252 and 295 situate in village Nedrai, Pargana and Tehsil Kole District Aligarh. They claim that the land is abadi land and has been in their possession since long back.
Petitioners claim that new plot no. 153 was wrongly allotted to the respondents by the Gaon Sabha. They, therefore moved proceedings under Rule 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. It may be stated here that the proceedings under Rule 115-P relate to the provisions of section 122-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1951.
While deciding the objection under Rule 115-P filed by the petitioners, the trial court recorded by its order dated 10.6.1996 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) that the land had vested in Gaon Sabha and at the time of vesting of the land in Gaon Sabha, the petitioner had been given valuation for the said land. The trial court had relied on a spot inspection report made by the Tehsildar dated 23.4.1996, on the basis of which, an order has been passed under Rule 115-P.
The petitioner therefore preferred a revision under section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act. While hearing the revision, the revisional court has relied on a decision of this Court as given in the case of Smt. Sumratiya vs. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, as reported in 1996 (87) R.D. 163 where the Hon'ble Court has held that no revision would lie against an order passed in proceedings under section 122-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions - firstly the order under Rule 115-P is in the nature of the final order and therefore it is revisable; and secondly that plot no. 153 was in his possession as abadi land and could not have been allotted to any other person.
In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Standing counsel have argued that proceedings under section 122-C of the Act are not open to revision and to the second argument, the respondents and the State have argued that in fact it had come on record that the plot in dispute was not abadi land and was vested in the Gaon Sabha land and land had been allotted to indigent persons, for the purpose of constructing their homes.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that in fact, the matter with regard to the plot in dispute has been settled in consolidation proceedings itself and if the petitioners were aggrieved by an order passed by the Consolidation Courts, then the appropriate remedy for him was to file a civil suit for declaration of his title and rights as abadi and these were not the appropriate proceedings in which such disputed questions of fact can be raised in a writ petition. There is force in the submission made by the learned Standing counsel.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and I am of the opinion that in view of the law laid down in the case of Smt. Sumratiya (supra), it is open to the petitioners to agitate all questions of title by way of filing a civil suit.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merits. The impugned orders dated 10.6.1996 and 17.3.1997 are upheld. There is no orders as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.