Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45360 of 2006 Petitioner :- Gyanendra Pratap Singh And Others Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Tewari,Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Birendra Singh,M.K.Singh,V.K. Singh
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents.
This petition impugns an order dated 20 February 2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The proceedings themselves emanated from an application made by on Brahm Prasad under Section 33/39 of the 1901 Act claiming mutation in his favour over the plot in question. The respondents 6 and 7 arrayed here are the sons of Brahm Prasad. Consequent to the death of the sixth respondent, his legal heirs have been duly substituted. The case set forth by Brahm Prasad was that in consolidation proceedings an order dated 19 May 1971 had come to be passed in his favour recording that entries of Navin Parti be deleted and his name be recorded over the plot in question. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application seeking mutation on this basis holding that the contention as addressed clearly raised questions of title. The Prescribed Authority also noticed the objections which were preferred by the father of the petitioner in those proceedings. The order of the Prescribed Authority of 24 August 1992 was assailed by the father of the respondents 6 and 7 by way of a statutory revision. It is this revision which has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner.
As is evident from the recitals appearing in the impugned order, the sole ground on which the order of 24 August 1992 had been set aside and a direction for recordal of the name of Brahm Prasad issued is the order of 19 May 1971 purported to have been passed in consolidation proceedings. Before this Court, it is the vehement stand of the petitioners that the order of 19 May 1971 is a forgery and that no such order was ever passed in favour of Brahm Prasad. The Court has also been taken through the findings in this respect as recorded by the Prescribed Authority. The Court however notes that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on a more fundamental ground. While granting relief to the father of the respondents 6 and 7 and framing directions for the recordal of his name in the relevant record, the Additional Commissioner has proceeded to hold that in light of the order dated 19 May 1971, the entries as appearing in CH Form Nos. 41 and 45 are incorrect. The principal question which therefore arises is whether the Additional Commissioner had the authority and jurisdiction to return such a finding.
In the considered view of the Court, the answer to the question as posed must necessarily be in the negative. Proceedings under Section 33/39 of the 1901 Act, are principally concerned with deciding and recognizing the possession of a person over the property in question. These proceedings are not intended to be a forum for adjudication of title rights. In any case the Court finds no jurisdiction or authority inhering in the Additional Commissioner to doubt entries as made in CH Forms 41 and 45 which are conferred statutory finality.
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Additional Commissioner has clearly transgressed the jurisdiction as conferred upon him under the 1901 Act. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 20 February 2006 is hereby quashed. All consequential action shall be taken by the respondents accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)