Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 29943 of 2003 Petitioner :- Mam Raj Respondent :- Board Of Revenue & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahid Masud,Ayub Khan,R.P.Mishra,S. Ashraf Ali Warsi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.K. Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Case has been called out in the revised list.
Standing counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri R.P. Mishra, counsel for respondent no. 4 are present.
Petitioner was recorded as a Class-III holder of the disputed plot. Case No. 2 of 1985 under Section 202 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') was instituted by the Gaon Sabha, i.e. respondent no. 3, praying for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed plot inter alia pleading that the disputed plot is Johar in nature and was allotted to the father of the petitioner for growing Singhara. After the death of the father of the petitioner, petitioner retained possession of the said plot but stopped growing Singhara and tried to change the nature of the disputed plot by making constructions on the same. It was also pleaded by the Gaon Sabha that the petitioner was not paying any land revenue and the patta executed in favour of the petitioner had expired and thus the petitioner was liable to be evicted from the disputed plot and the name of the petitioner as a Class-III holder of the disputed plot was liable to be deleted from the revenue records. The petitioner contested the aforesaid case by filing his written statement wherein he denied the averments made by the Gaon Sabha and stated that he was correctly recorded as a Class-III holder of the disputed pot and the disputed plot was not Johar in nature but was in the nature of abadi. The Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector-Class-I, Hapur, District Ghaziabad vide his judgment and order dated 27.4.1993 allowed Case No. 2 of 1985. Against the order dated 27.4.1993 passed by the Assistant Collector-Class-I, Hapur, District Ghaziabad, the petitioner filed an appeal which was registered as Appeal No. 36/1992-93. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut Division, Meerut vide his order dated 21.6.1993 allowed the aforesaid appeal and set-aside the order dated 27.4.1993 passed by the Trial Court. A perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court would show that in its aforesaid order, the Appellate Court did not consider the findings of the Trial Court as well as the pleadings of respondent no. 3-Gaon Sabha in its application instituting Case No. 2 of 1985. Against the order dated 21.6.1993 passed by the appellate court, respondent no. 3 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad which was registered as Revision No. 1 of 1993-94. The said revision was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 1.4.1999. The orders dated 1.4.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue and 27.4.1993 passed by the Assistant Collector, Class-I, Hapur have been challenged in the present writ petition.
A perusal of the records of the writ petition shows that an amendment application has also been filed by the petitioner wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was in cultivatory possession of the disputed plot in 1359 Fasli and therefore became Adhivasi w.e.f. 1.7.1952 and consequently a Sirdar under Section 240-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore Case No. 2 of 1985 was liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the records of the case and findings of the courts below and find no illegality in the orders of the Trial Court as well as Board of Revenue. It was established from the evidence on record that the land was Johar in nature and the petitioner was wrongly recorded as Class-III holder of the disputed plot. The fact that the petitioner was wrongly recorded a Class-III holder of the disputed plot is also substantiated by the averments made by the petitioner himself in his amendment application wherein he claims that his father was in cultivatory possession of the disputed plot in 1359 Fasli and therefore became Adhivasi w.e.f. 1.7.1952 and subsequently a Sirdar. It is pertinent to record that cultivatory possession of an occupant in 1359 Fasli is irrelevant to be recorded as Adhivasi in as much as under Section 20 of the Act, 1950, a person has to be recorded as an occupant of the plot in either Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli to become an Adhivasi and to retain possession of the disputed plot as such. In view of the aforesaid, averments made in the amendment application do not help the petitioner. So far as the findings of the Trial Court is concerned, the aforesaid findings are based on evidence on record and I do not find any illegality in the same. The petitioner had never tried to litigate his rights during the consolidation proceedings and as would be evident from the judgments of the Trial Court as well as Board of Revenue the petitioner had also changed the nature of the disputed plot and was not growing Singhara which was evident from the statement of the petitioner himself. The petitioner was also not paying land revenue of the plot and was thus liable to be evicted.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Satyam