Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4759 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nanhe Khan @ Nanhe Miyan And Another Respondent :- Collector/ District Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh,Pushpendra Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.S. Pipersenia assisted by Sri Pushendra Singh, counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned standing counsel.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.5.2018 passed by the Collector/District Director of Consolidation, Etah, whereby recall/restoration application filed by the petitioner has been rejected affirming the order dated 8.9.2008, by which name of the petitioners and other persons were expunged from the revenue records.
The facts as reflect from record are that petitioners claimed that Bhoodan Yagya Committee-respondent no. 3 granted a patta in favour of the petitioners and other persons on 23.12.1988. Subsequently, on the basis of report of Lekhpal/Sub Divisional Magistrate, dated 4.10.1997, the entries regarding name of the petitioners and others, were expunged from the revenue records in the proceedings under section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act vide order dated 13.10.1997. The said order was challenged by some other alleged allottees by filing several writ petitions, one of which being Writ Petition No. 313116 of 2003 and the High Court vide order dated 6.8.2003 while setting aside the order dated 13.10.1997, remanded the matter to the District Director of Consolidation, Etah to reconsider the case after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners filed objection/representation before the authority concerned and the Collector/District Director of Consolidation, Etah passed an order dated 8.9.2008 expunging the names of the petitioners and other allottees, recording a finding that entries were fraudulently made in the revenue records and no such allotment was made by the Bhoodan Yagya Committee-respondent no. 3 in favour of the petitioners and others. Even otherwise, a finding is also recorded that in revenue records, in the name of Bhoodan Yagya Committee only 224.06 acres of land is recorded whereas pattas are claimed to have been granted to the extent of 334.82 Acres, which is more than about 110 acres than the land actually possessed by Bhoodan Yagya Committee, therefore, all the entries are forged. It is further recorded that after grant of alleged Pattas, no efforts were made by the petitioners and others to get their names recorded in the revenue records.
The petitioners filed a recall application on 27.7.2017 i.e. after a lapse of 9 years against the order dated 8.9.2008 expunging their names. By the order impugned in this petition, the said recall application has been rejected.
Contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners had no knowledge about the order dated 8.9.2008 and when the officials came at the spot in order to dispossess them, it is only then the said order came to their knowledge and therefore the recall application should be allowed. It is further contended that the allotment of land by respondent no. 3 in favour of the petitioners was in accordance with law and the same cannot be cancelled and names of the petitioners cannot be expunged in the proceedings under section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned order contending that all entries with regard to allotment alleged to have been made by respondent no. 3, are forged one and no such allotment was made. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that a finding has been recorded that much more land is alleged to have been allotted by respondent no. 3 than the land actually belonging to it. It is next submitted on behalf of the respondents that though recall application was filed after inordinate delay of nine years, yet no delay condonation application and affidavit in support thereof was filed and in such circumstances, the recall application has rightly been rejected by the impugned order.
After hearing the submissions and on perusal of record, it is apparent that name of the petitioners was not recorded in the revenue records. The allotment is alleged to have been made by respondent no. 3 in excess of the land belonging to it. Further, after remand of the matter by the High Court, the petitioners participated in the proceedings, therefore, the order cannot be said to be an ex parte order as it has been passed after hearing the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the order dated 8.9.2008 was not in the knowledge of the petitioners. A detailed order dated 8.9.2008 has been passed by the Collector while expunging the name of the petitioners assigning cogent reasons for the conclusions drawn. In these circumstances, the recall application has rightly been rejected by the order impugned.
There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 SNT/