Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Gaon Sabha.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 4.11.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Lucknow in exercise of powers under Section 27(4) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. By the said impugned order, the Additional Commissioner has cancelled allotments issued in favour of petitioners in the year 1999 on the ground that the said allotments relate to ceiling land and for the same land allotments were also issued in the year 1993. The name of one of the allottees was noted in the revenue record in 1993, but rest could not be noted as Consolidation of Holdings proceeding were initiated in the village. However, the authority specifically notes that he summonned the record and verified the fact that said 26 allotments were issued to different persons in 1993. Without cancelling the said allotments issued in 1993, allotments of same land were again issued on 24.10.1999. The impugned order dated 4.11.2004 is passed on the ground that land which is already allotted to different persons in the year 1993 cannot be allotted in the year 1999 to some other persons without cancelling the said earlier allotments. The learned counsel for petitioners has challenged the said order.
Learned counsel for petitioners could not show any record from which it can be seen that either allotments of the year 1993 of said ceiling land were not issued or were later cancelled. The sole submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that since the names of the earlier allottees are not noted in the revenue record, it would be deemed that Pattas were not issued. Second submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that since ceiling proceedings were going on in the village, therefore, the allotments could not be issued. The authority/Additional Commissioner concerned has given specific finding in the impugned order that the allotments were issued with regard to the same ceiling land, which he himself verified by summoning the original allotments. The Additional Commissioner has further given finding that the Chakbandi started after the Pattas were issued and, therefore, the same could not be noted in the revenue record except for one. Thus, from the said finding of fact it is clear that the allotments were issued in the year 1993 prior to Consolidation proceedings and same related to excess ceiling land with regard to which the allotments were again illegally issued in 1999. There is nothing on record to controvert the said finding of fact.
Learned counsel for petitioners further referred to a questionnaire under Right to Information Act, issued by Tahsildar, Lakhimpur Kheri that there is no record available with regard to proceedings of the year 1993 in his Office. There is no question of making application under Right to Information Act in judicial proceedings.The petitioners should have applied for certified copy of any document which they want to rely upon. It appears, that, in last 14 years the petition is pending before this Court, no such attempt was made. The judicial proceedings cannot be decided on the basis of any opinion or reply given to a questionnaire under Right to Information Act. The proceedings can only be decided on the basis of documents filed in a case before the Court. Since there is no document filed before this Court in the present case to controvert the finding of facts given in the impugned order, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 Rajneesh JR-PS) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.)