At the time of hearing no one appeared for respondent No.4 even though the case was taken up on the revised list. Accordingly, only the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 were heard.
Respondent No.4, Ram Prasad was the complainant on whose application proceedings for cancellation of patta granted to the petitioner were initiated. The first order which has been challenged through this writ petition is dated 22.09.1997 passed by C.R.O./ A.D.M. (L.R.), Azamgarh in Case No.477/562 under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Ram Prasad Vs. Munnilal. Copy of the said order is Annexure-IV to the writ petition. Ram Prasad had challenged the patta granted in favour of the petitioner of Gaon Sabha Plot No.533, area 0.17 acres and Plot No.340, area 0.17 acres situate in village Mirzapur Tappa Bela and Pargana Bela Daultabad Tehsil Lalganj District Azamgarh. The property in dispute is entered in the revenue records as pond and is situate near the road. It was further alleged that Munni Lal who was Pradhan had allotted the land in dispute to his son Ram Chandra (a residential patta), however the said allotment was not approved by S.D.O. Lalganj through order dated 18.05.1985, which order was challenged in the civil court but the suit was dismissed (O.S. No.105 of 1986, dismissed on 31.01.1994). It was further alleged that thereafter Munnilal showing forged signatures of previous deceased Pradhan Chauthi Yadav manufactured a patta in his own name purporting to be of the year 1969 and then through application under Sections 33/39, Land Revenue Act got his name mutated on 30.09.1993. Application for cancellation of patta was filed on 14.06.1994.
Even in consolidation records, the land in dispute was shown to be a phokhri (small pond). In the impugned order it is mentioned that S.D.O. passed the order of mutation of the name of petitioner on 30.09.1993. Ultimately, C.R.O. cancelled the approval of mutation of name of the petitioner through order dated 22.09.1997. Against the said order, restoration application was filed which was rejected by Collector, Azamgarh on 22.06.1998 (Annexure-V to the writ petition). Thereafter petitioner filed revision No.150/A of 2000. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh dismissed the revision on 31.07.2000 (Annexure-VII to the writ petition). All these three orders have been challenged through this writ petition. Revisional court held that if in fact some patta had been granted to the petitioner, then during consolidation he should have raised the objections regarding entry of his name.
In my opinion the petitioner committed a pure fraud and forgery. Pradhan is custodian and guardian of the property of Gaon Sabha. Petitioner usurped the property of which he was the guardian. A pond can never be allotted to any one. It could be let out for fisheries purposes only. As the land is adjacent to the road, hence it appears to be quite expensive. If in fact some allotment had been made in the year 1969 (which itself should have been void being of a pond), then petitioner would have promptly got his name mutated. Firstly petitioner allotted the land to his son and thereafter contrived a design to usurp the land by forging allotment of 1969 in his own favour.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No.4 not being claimant for allotment and a person not deserving allotment could not initiate proceedings for cancellation. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Meharban Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) AWC 1969. In that case the allotment/ alleged allotment was not of any public utility land. In respect of public utility land every resident of the village is person aggrieved. Even otherwise C.R.O. could very well take suo motu action.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
It is directed that petitioner must forthwith be evicted and land in dispute must be maintained as pond and if it has been levelled, it should immediately be dug up so that in ensuing rainy season it could be filled up with water. For the said purpose, funds of MNAREGA may also be utilized.
Since 1993 till 2011 (18 years), petitioner shall be liable to pay damages for use and occupation @ Rs.5000/- per year, total Rs.90,000/-. This amount shall also be recovered from the petitioner like arrears of land revenue within six weeks positively and shall be utilized in reconverting the land in dispute into the form of pond otherwise this amount shall be kept in consolidated Gaon Gund constituted under Section 125-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel within three days.
Order Date :- 04.07.2011 NLY