With regard to plot no.217/1, which has been entered as Navin Parti, having an area of 7 biswa and 3 biswansi, a resolution was passed on 23.10.1997 by the respondent no.5 i.e. the Land Management Committee allotting the same to the petitioners. Approval was granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 16.11.1999. However, a complaint was filed by respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 on 17.2.2000 for cancellation of the residential lease granted in favour of the petitioners. The Additional Collector (Administration), Ghaziabad rejected the complaint on 31.8.2000. However, the Revision of the complainants, when was allowed on 18.1.2001, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following submissions :
i. The complainants were not "persons aggrieved" and that they had nothing to do with plot no.217/1. He further submits that the suit which the complainants had filed being Suit No.198 of 1996 was with regard to plot no.217 of the same village and not with regard to plot no.217/1. Learned counsel further submits that the decree which was passed with regard to plot no.217 in Suit No.198 of 1996, had been challenged by the Gaon Sabha in a separate Suit. To substantiate his argument that an application filed by the complainant could not be looked into unless the complainant was an "aggrieved person", the petitioners relied upon 2005 (98) RD 106 : (Pyare Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maninpuri Camp at Etah & Ors.).
ii. With regard to the finding in the judgment of the Revisional Court that there was no notice to the members who were required to be present on the date when the resolution was to be passed, learned counsel submits that a wrong finding had been arrived at on the basis of the affidavits of the members that they had no notice about the meeting which was to be held on 23.10.1997. Learned counsel submits that if those affidavits were to be relied upon then they should have been put to proof. The persons who had given the affidavits should have been made to prove their affidavits. The petitioners should have been allowed to rebut the affidavits and ultimately only after they were proved to be correct, should they have been relied upon. The petitioners should have been given an opportunity to prove that the signatures on the resolution of the members were correct and that the affidavits were in fact wrongly given. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the finding with regard to the fact that the quorum was incomplete was thus absolutely erroneous.
iii. Learned counsel submits that the Munadi which had taken place was also not to be disbelieved when Ballu, the person who had given the affidavit on 11.8.2000 had stated that he had in fact made the Munadi. The affidavit of Ballu could not have been disbelieved without taking recourse to the procedure prescribed by the law of evidence. When there was no rebuttal to the affidavit filed by Ballu, then there was no other option with the Revisional Court but to rely upon it.
Learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, however, submits that when there was a suit with regard to plot no.217 and when there was a decree with regard to it, then there was no other option with the Revisional Court but to decide the case in favour of the complainants and against the allotees. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Munadi was defective and to strengthen his submission relies upon the affidavits which had been given by the members of the Land Management Committee saying that there was no notice of the date when the meeting had to take place.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainants and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, I am of the definite view that the Revisional Court when it was reversing the judgment of the Additional Collector should have given definite findings as to whether:
(i) the complainants were persons aggrieved;
(ii) the affidavits given by the members of the Land Management Committee were to be believed and that they could have been relied upon without being proved;
(iii) the Munadi which Ballu was saying he had made should not have been believed; and
(iv) the signatures of the members of the Land Management Committee on the notice of the meeting should have been taken to be incorrect on the basis of their affidavits only.
In the absence of these findings the order of the Revisional Court dated 18.4.2001 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is thus, quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.01.2019 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)