Court No. - 54
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66627 of 2015 Petitioner :- Shakuntala Devi Respondent :- Addl. Collector And 19 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Pratap Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Raghubir Singh,Y.S.Bohra
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents no. 3 to 9 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Respondents no. 10 to 18 are the persons from whom titles were derived by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest as a result of decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 21.10.1982 and which was never contested by the respondents no. 10 to 18, impleaded in this writ petition, and accordingly they are only proforma respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 10.3.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of power under Section 33/39 at the instance of the contesting respondents no. 3 to 9 is virtually an order in the teeth of the earlier order passed on 14.12.2012 and, therefore, not sustainable. He submits that the petitioner's recall/ restoration application in respect of the said order was wrongly rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 22nd May, 2015 and also the revision has been wrongly rejected by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 31.7.2015.
4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that plot no. 384 area 0.0510 hectare ( erstwhile old Khasra no. 472/1) was originally recorded in the name of Ravidutt, Jaypal, Chandrapal S/o Heera, Raghuwar Dayal S/o Kude Singh, Sohanlal, Harikishan S/o Amirchand, Krishna, Rajesh, Pintu S/o Radheshyam. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 11.6.1960 from the recorded tenure-holder who are respondents no. 10 to 18, herein in respect of their share in the land in question and claimed that it is only Nagendra, Ravindra S/o Chandrabhan, Ranjeet, Jawahar lal S/o Bhagmal, Anil Kumar, Preet Kumar S/o Subey Singh were entitled to be mutated as co-tenure holders over the land in question.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer found the claim of the present petitioner's husband to be genuine and accordingly decreed the suit under Section 229-B directing that the name of vendors of Jal Singh be struck off from the revenue records and the name of the petitioner's husband Jal Singh S/o Kallu be mutated. It appears that in compliance of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer the petitioner's husband Jal Singh name was got recorded along with the names of contesting respondents no. 3 to 10. It appears that after the computerized khatuni was prepared, the name of the petitioner and the contesting respondents no. 3 to 9 did not find entry over the land in question.
6. The petitioner moved an application under Section 33/39 for the correction of revenue records. The application of the petitioner who succeeded the land from her husband came to be allowed vide order dated 14.12.2012 with a direction that the name of Smt. Shakuntala Devi w/o Jal Singh be recorded.
7. It appears that in view of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the name of the petitioner came to be recorded over the entire land of plot no. 384 instead of half share.
8. The contesting respondents no. 3 to 9 having come to know about the aforesaid order, moved an application that they may be made parties in the said case and should have been heard but their application came to be rejected vide order dated 16.8.2013 with the liberty to the contesting respondents to move their own application. Consequently the contesting respondents no. 3 to 9 moved an application under Section 33/39 on 21.10.2013 which came to be allowed vide order dated 10.3.2014 whereby the name of the contesting respondents no.3 to 9 where also directed to be mutated along with Shakuntala Devi over plot no. 384 area 0.0510 hectare of village Banthala, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad.
9. It is this order which was sought to be recalled by the petitioner by filing the recall application but the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.5.2015 and against that the revision was also dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2015.
10. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order was passed on the back of the petitioner and that once the order had been passed directing for mutation of the name of the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 14.12.2012 and that application for recall of the order came to be rejected on 16.8.2013, there was no occasion to allow second application moved by the contesting respondents no. 3 to 9.
11. Per contra the argument advanced by the leaned counsel for contesting respondents no. 3 to 9 that the orders passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer is perfectly justified and is virtually in compliance of the original judgment and decree dated 21.10.1982 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer in the suit instituted under Section 229-B of the present petitioner's husband Jal Singh.
12. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and their arguments advanced across the bar and having gone through the relevant orders passed by the revenue authorities, from time to time, I find that one admitted position emerges and that is, so far plot no. 384 area 0.510 hectares is concerned in respect of the said land, the co-tenure holders were Ravidutt, Jaypal, Chandrapal S/o Heera, Raghuwar Dayal S/o Kude Singh, Sohanlal, Harikishan S/o Amirchand, Krishna, Rajesh, Pintu S/o Radheshyam and the petitioner's husband having purchased the land from the said tenure-holder on 11.6.1960 set up a title case to the extent of half share and the said suit for title under Section 229-B came to be decreed. From the operative portion of the decree, it is clear that the name of only Ravidutt, Jaypal, Chandrapal S/o Heera, Raghuwar Dayal S/o Kude Singh, Sohanlal, Harikishan S/o Amirchand, Krishna, Rajesh, Pintu S/o Radheshyam were directed to be deleted and in their place name of Jal Singh S/o Kalu was directed to be recorded.
13. In such view of the matter even after the computerized khatuni was prepared and those names still continued, the petitioner, in the considered opinion of the Court,rightly prayed for correction of the name under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. From the perusal of the application that has been filed under Section 33/39 it is quite clear that Ravidutt, Jaypal, Chandrapal S/o Heera, Raghuwar Dayal S/o Kude Singh, Sohanlal, Harikishan S/o Amirchand, Krishna, Rajesh, Pintu S/o Radheshyam only were impleaded as the contesting respondent and the present contesting respondents no. 3 to 9 were not made party. From the prayer clause of the said application it is also reflected that the prayer was only for deletion of the name of those respondents so the Sub-Divisional Officer rightly passed the order directing for mutation of the name of Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/o Jal Singh in place of those very respondents. In the said order there is no whisper of the claim of the contesting respondents no. 3 to 9 possibly because there was no purpose for them to contest the matter their application for recall of the said order on 16.8.2013 was rejected.
14. From the perusal of the order, it is clear that the court observed it not proper to pass order in the said case but had left it open for the applicants to set up their claim for mutation of name. In such view of the matter therefore, the second application came to be filed by the contesting respondents no. 3 to 9 and which was allowed. From the perusal of the order which was sought to be recalled and against which revision has also been dismissed, I find that the Sub-Divisional Officer has very categorically recorded a finding of fact to the effect that petitioner's husband was entitled to be recorded over the land under the decree of 1982 along with contesting respondents no. 3 to 9.
15. It has come to be recorded in the original judgment, as I have already pointed out hereinabove in the earlier part of this order, that the petitioner's husband was entitled only to the extent of share of his vendor over the land. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner could be recorded over the land against the decree passed in his own suit, no plausible answer seems to be forthcoming and he could not point out any perversity in the order dated 10th March, 2014.
16. The fact of not being heard in the special facts and circumstances of the case would not have resulted in any miscarriage of justice as both the parties were directed by the two orders to be mutated over their respective share of the land in question. If the petitioner feels even otherwise he is entitled to the entire land then the course open for him is to again file suit at appropriate forum. The law is well settled that even if on remand the ultimate result will be the same as has been arrived under of the order impugned herein this writ petition, then remand is futility and it will not only result in wastage of time but would be also cumbersome and burdensome upon the litigant.
17. The law is equally also settled that the principles of natural justice cannot be put into straight jacket formula to apply it in those cases where even opportunity of hearing is not going to alter the position. It depends on facts of each case and in my view this is not the case fit for remand.
18. In view of the above, I do not find any fault in the orders impugned.
19. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Nadeem Ahmad