High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Kunwar Singh v. Gaon Sabha, Mahsuwala, Moradabad And Others - WRIT - C No. 264 of 2002  RD-AH 909 (30 March 2005)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
This writ petition has been directed against the orders dated 1.2.2001, Annexure 4 to the petition, passed by the Deputy Collector, Thakurdwara, Moradabad- respondent no. 2 and dated 20.11.2001, Annexure 5 to the petition, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad Division, Moradabad -respndent no. 3.
Brief facts of the case are that plot no. 56 admeasuring 0.216 hectare (class III land) was leased out to the petitioner in 1992, i.e., 1399 Fasli. He claims that prior to 1992, these plots were cultivated by his father w.e.f.e 1950 to 1978. It is alleged that after the death of his father in 1998 he is in continuous possession over the land in dispute. He further claims that as no proceedings for his ejectment ever took place as provided in Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'), he became bhumidhar with non-transferable right under Section 204 of the Act and he accordingly moved an application under Section 204 of the Act for being recorded as bhumidhar with non-transferable right in the revenue records. On his application, report was called for by the Deputy Collector from Tahsil authorities. The Lekhpal submitted his report dated 11.1.2002 inter alia that the petitioner was in possession over the land in dispute as Assami Pattedar w.e.f. year 1992
The Deputy Collector, after hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 1.2.2001 rejecting the application of the petitioner for entering his name as bhumidhar with non-transferable right as the land in dispute was a pond and the same was covered by Section 132 of the Act.
Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Revision No. 34 of 2001-02 under Section 333 of the Act, which too was dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.11.2001 by the respondent no. 3- Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad Division, Moradabad and hence this petition.
The revisional court has placed implicit reliance on a decision of this court in Jagdamba and others V. sub Divisional Officer Sadar Mirzapur and others 1998 R.D.-433 and after going through the record of the court below has come to the conclusion that undisputedly, the land in dispute belongs to the Gram Panchayat. It has been held that the petitioner-revisionist had claimed Assami Patta of the land which was allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat for a period of two years only in 1992. The court below has given a finding of fact that the land, in dispute is a pond and the revisionist-petitioner had lavelled the same and was using it as agricultural land but this illegal act on the part of the petitioner-revisionist will not change the land from pond to agricultural land in the revenue records.. The revisional court has also found that the revisionist had not stated anywhere in his revision that the land in dispute was not a pond. Relying upon the decision of the apex court in Special Appeal No. 4787 of 2001 decided on 25.7.2001, wherein it has been held that no person can have any legal right over a pond, the revisional court has dismissed the revision of the petitioner. He also could not give any evidence about the land being cultivated by his father during the period 1950-1978. Apart from this, it is undisputed that he was not in possession of the land and came in possession only in 1992 when Assami Patta was granted to him by the Gram Panchayat.
No illegality or infirmity in the judgement and order passed by the revisional court affirming the order of the court below has been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was given Assami Patta in 1992 for a period of two years and the petitioner does not have any legal right to continue in possession over the disputed land which reverts back to Gaon Sabha even if physical possession is not taken back by the Gram Panchayat. If persons are allowed to claim land of Gaon Sabha on the basis of illegal possession or change of nature of land by them, the very object of the Act would be defeated. No person can have any legal right over pond which is for public purpose.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.