JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Sri Anuj Kumar, learned advocate who appeared for Land Management Committee.
2. Prayer in this petition is to quash the proceedings in Case No. 25 of 2005 initiated against the petitioner, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalganj.
3. Challenge in the proceeding is mainly on the ground that it has been started on a letter which came from the office of Chief Minister and therefore, proceeding is politically motivated. Thus the question posed here is that whether on this ground alone, proceeding of a case which can be otherwise maintainable, is to be quashed at very initial stage itself.
4. The Court has examined the merits in the submission in the light of details as available on record. Proceeding as started against the petitioner is under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act which is summary in nature and its finality is subject to final decision in regular suit as provided under U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. Summary proceedings are meant to correct the incorrect entiy if it is so found. The provision under which proceeding has been started states that it is the duty of the Collector to maintain the correct record. Needless to say that in these proceedings, complicated questions of title are not meant to be decided and it is only on the basis of enquiry after an opportunity of evidence and hearing to the party concerned if it is found that the entry sought to be corrected has no basis or that it is result of fraud, necessary correction is to be directed. If the expunction of entry needs full fledged trial in the light of serious examination in respect to merit of some order on the basis of which entry came to be there it is for the Court to see that whether proceedings are within the scope of enquiry as permissible. Be as it may, objection of petitioner to the proceedings on the ground that it has come into existence on a letter which has come from the office of Chief Minister and therefore, it is to be quashed do not appeal to this Court. Merely by the fact that a case has been started on the letter written by political person, proceedings cannot be said to be automatically vitiated and void. A political man first is a man and then he is to be recognized by his office. There cannot be any presumption in law that if a proceeding proceeds on the pointing out of a political man, then that has to be necessarily biased, motivated and with ulterior motive. The merit and justification in his recommendation either in administrative side or on other fronts is to be seen. So far administrative decision/direction are concerned, as all are not subject to scrutiny in judicial side unless facts and law so permits, less interference of Courts can be there. So far judicial side is concerned, certainly merely on their letter, no proceeding of a case can be started unless case is registered as permitted in law. But take a case that no specific procedure is provided for getting the needful i.e. filing of suit or going through rigorous procedure to get a proceeding started as sometimes just by filing a complaint or an application by anybody pointing out various kinds of inaction, irregularities, if law courts are able to take note of the facts and they can proceed in law, then merely for the reason that proceeding has started on a letter of political man, proceeding cannot be held to be automatically vitiated. Take a case, that there is complaint against deficit stamp duty in a deed or there is complaint against fraud and forgery in revenue record and public utility land which has been managed to be recorded in the name of 'A', Compliant is, by an ordinary person who claims to be interested in getting the correct stamp duty paid in the interest of State revenue or in getting the public utility land protected from being grabbed by unauthorised person. In either of the situations, the competent authority can get the enquiry conducted and can proceed in the matter by getting a case registered and after issuance of notice to probable affected parties and after opportunity of evidence and hearing the concerned competent authority/court can pass appropriate orders. This job of complainant is just by way of information and thereafter, his role is over. In view of aforesaid, if this can be done on information of any interested person, then why not, on the information of any body else who can be said to be a powerful man. The justification in the objection of opposing parties can be only when it is proved that decision of the authority/court is a result of influence of that, powerful personality. Thus, to begin with the proceeding, to say to be result of bias, may not be correct all the times. It may be in rare case, where there is extra ordinary situation and facts are so apparent, admitted, clear from which proceeding can be established to be abuse of process, the Court may interfere at initial stage. Here is the case where under the Act Collector is assigned the duty to maintain the correct record. If entry in the name of any person is a result of fraud and is without any basis, then any body may just point out the concerned competent authority in that respect and as the Collector is the custodian of record and a duty is cast on him to get correct record, he can take note of the complaint and may get the proceeding started. Needless to say that mere start of proceeding cannot be said to cause any prejudice to the concerned party as it is passing of order which if is adverse can be said to be prejudicial to his interest. It is at that stage from the facts and circumstances, the bias, motive and political interference can be examined and if it is so, the order can be held to be legally vitiated on that ground alone. Thus, on start of proceeding, it is for the aggrieved party to file his objection by giving details in respect to the correctness of entry as exists in his favour upon which, the Court is to take appropriate decision, in accordance with law. The order of Collector/ Sub Divisional Officer is subject to challenge in appeal/revision as provided under the Land Revenue Act itself and it is thereafter it is subject to challenge in regular forum as provided under U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act and therefore, this Court is not satisfied that on the ground so taken by petitioner to challenge the start of proceeding, same can be quashed at very initial stage without any enquiry into the matter.
5. In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that various details in respect to correctness of the entry is to be placed by the petitioner before the court concerned by placing complete facts and evidence to justify the correctness and propriety of the entry in his favour upon which, the Court will take appropriate decision, in accordance with law. Going into merits in petitioner's contention in the light of evidence and to accept the correctness of entry in his favour will amount to pre-judging the issue, which cannot be said to be permissible straight way by this Court as there is no trial and any finding by the Court of fact. Thus this court is of the view that to accept the submission about correctness of entry, this is a premature stage. Petitioner is to wait for a finding on the question of fact by court below in the light of pleading and evidence.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is not persuaded to interfere in the matter at this stage.
7. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.