Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42214 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dhani Ram Respondent :- Ram Narain And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.12.2008, whereby an allotment of plot no. 311/3 area 1.50 acres, situated in village Pulgahana, Tehsil Moth, District Jhansi, in favour of the petitioner, has been cancelled as also the order dated 17.07.2017, whereby the consequential revision of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Commissioner.
At the very out-set, it would be relevant to note that the writ petition is reported to suffer from latches of 783 days that is more than two years. The only explanation of this inordinate delay is that the petitioner was informed by his local counsel that a huge amount of money would be required for filing this writ petition and that it took him two years to arrange for the money.
On the merits, it has been submitted that the allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that he was not a resident of village Pulgahana and was, therefore, not entitled to an allotment in that village. It is contended that the petitioner had filed the certificate issued by the Pradhan showing that he was resident of village Pulgahana. He had filed his caste and income certificates, which have all been ignored by the courts below. Even the statement of the Pradhan that the petitioner was resident of village Pulgahana has not been taken note of. The impugned orders are, therefore, vitiated and are liable to be set-aside.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The revisional court has taken note of the certificate of residence, caste certificate and income certificate filed by the petitioner to show that he is resident of village Pulgahana but has discarded them as they are all issued on dates, subsequent to the allotment, which was approved on 4.06.1984.
I do not find any illegality in the reasoning given by the revisional court for discarding the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner.
The other ground for cancelling the allotment is that admittedly the petitioner was born in another village and that his father has a house there. The petitioner alleged that he was residing with his maternal uncle. This same maternal uncle was a member of the Land Management Committee and it was alleged in the complaint made against the allotment that the said maternal uncle influenced and procured the allotment in favour of the petitioner. There is no denial of these aspects in the writ petition.
In so far as the submission that the Pradhan had deposed in the proceedings stating that the petitioner was resident of village Pulgahana, it would be relevant to note that on a pointed query by the Court as to whether the Pradhan was competent to make such a statement, contrary to the interest of the Gaon Sabha, without having obtained prior permission of the Collector as is mandatorily required under law, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that there is no such evidence or pleading on record.
Under the circumstances, the statement of the Pradhan, which is contrary to the interest of the Gaon Sabha and was made without the prior permission of the Collector, was liable to be ignored by the courts below, as also this Court.
In view of what has been stated above, this Court finds that the allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled, after recording a finding of fact that he is not a resident of village Pulgahana, where the land, subject matter of allotment in his favour is situated. This finding is a finding of fact arrived at after consideration of materiel evidence on record and, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse. A finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with.
The writ petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Mayank