Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Revision No.2103/2015, under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act whereby the order dated 23.03.2015, passed by the Chief Revenue Officer under Sections 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act has been affirmed.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question i.e. Gata No.1406 area 14 biswa 10 dhur situate in Village Madhaupur Chhatauni, Pargana Baraunsa, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur was recorded in the name of Smt. Mohani Devi as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. It is further submitted that Smt. Kamla had acquired the aforesaid land in furtherance of an agriculture lease executed in the year 1976. Since, thereafter, she and after her death her legal representatives have been recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights and lately by means of a registered sale-deed dated 14.11.2007, the aforesaid land was transferred to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Gram Pradhan made an application on 06.03.2009 with the allegations that the Plot No.1406 (Old No.1038) has been recorded as pond land and accordingly the entry be corrected in accordance with Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901.
On the aforesaid application, a report was called for and in the report it was indicated that the Old Plot No.1038 was recorded as pond land in the fasli year 1356 and 1360. The petitioner filed his objection, however, without considering the same in a proper perspective, the impugned order dated 23.05.2015 was passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur directing the name of Smt. Mohani Devi to be deleted and the Plot No.1406 measuring 0.1830 situate in Village Madhaupur Chhatauni, Pargana Baraunsa, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur be recorded as pond land.
The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred a revision which has also been rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya by means of the order dated 27.12.2019.
The submission is that long standing entry could not have been struck off without holding a proper inquiry. It is also submitted that the aforesaid land in question even prior to the consolidation operations was recorded in the name of Smt. Mohani Devi. During consolidation operations, neither the State Government nor the Land Management Committee raised any objections to the effect that the said land was pond land. The land in question was valued and thereafter it was settled with Smt. Mohani Devi. Once, the aforesaid entries had become final in terms of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, it was not open for the State to have reversed the said entries by taking recourse to Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court to the documents relating to CH-Form No.41 & 45 also the statement of Tehsildar, who stated that in respect of the Plot No.1406 (Old No.1038), there is no entry of the aforesaid land being recorded as a pond land.
On the strength of the aforesaid, it has been urged that both the authorities below have committed an error in failing to note that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had a lease in her favour. If at all the lease was required to be cancelled then appropriate procedure as provided under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z. A. & L.R. Act ought to have been initiated also subject to the limitation as provided in sub-section (6) of Section 198. Ignoring the aforesaid, the orders have been passed though the petitioner is in possession and his rights are being disturbed by the State.
Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that in Fasli Year 1356 and 1360, Plot No.1038 has been recorded as pond land. After the consolidation, a new plot number is 1406. It has further been submitted that once a pond land has been incorporated in the entires then such a land could not have been made the subject matter of any lease. Moreover, it has been noticed by the two courts that the petitioner has not brought the lease deed of Smt. Kamla on record. It has also been submitted that the document as filed by the petitioner including the statement of Tehsildar clearly indicates that the Teshildar has stated that the Old Plot No.1038 was recorded as pond land and it has also admitted that New Plot No.1406 has been carved out from the Old Plot No.1038.
In view of the aforesaid, the State was justified in correcting the entries in terms of Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act coupled with the fact that entries in the revenue records do not convey the title . The issue whether the lease was executed though the same has not been brought on record by the petitioner and the fact whether any right was available with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and whether such right could be transferred are all questions which requires consideration upon leading evidence and in order to ascertain the aforesaid, the petitioner has right to get his rights declared in terms of Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code which is equivalent to Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is not maintainable.
The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record.
It is now well settled that this Court does not generally entertain petition in respect of proceedings arising out of Section 33/34 of the Land Revenue Act inasmuch as they are only summary proceedings which do not decide the rights of the parties. It is also not in dispute that the entries in the revenue records is primarily for fiscal purposes which does not create nor extinguish any rights.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the core issue as to when, how and in what manner, the petitioner (her predecessor-in-interest) had got the lease is to be ascertained. Though it has been stated in the memo of revision preferred by the petitioner that Smt. Mohani Devi was an agriculture lessee of the property in question. However, that lease has not been brought on record. Merely because the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has been recorded as bhoomidhar with transferable rights in the revenue records, without there being any order and in absence of any material to indicate the nature of the lease, the period of lease and coupled with the fact that it is not much in dispute that Plot No.1038 was recorded as pond land in Fasli Year 1356 and 1360, the aforesaid aspect gain significance and can only be decided upon trial in a suit seeking declaration of rights.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shyeo Raj Singh @ Suraj Singh vs. Rakesh Singh & 5 Ors., Writ -C No.628 of 2014 decided on 14.05.2019 to urge that the lease can only be cancelled but only taking recourse to Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and taking note of limitation as it is provided in sub-section (6).
From the perusal of the aforesaid report, it would indicate that there was a lease which was executed in favour of the petitioner. The proceedings under Section 198(4) was initiated on the basis of a complaint made on 09.06.2010 and in the aforesaid backdrop, the Court held that since the proceedings had been initiated on a complaint, thus, the period of limitation also gains importance since it was beyond the prescribed period of limitation, hence, the proceedings were quashed. Apparently, the aforesaid decision has no applicability in the present case inasmuch as it is not a case where the proceedings have been initiated for cancellation of the lease on a complaint.
The other decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Chhidda & 5 Ors. vs. State of U.P. & 5 Ors., Writ C No.25103 of 2013, decided on 17.07.2019 and on the strength of the aforesaid decision, it has been urged that the period of limitation if prescribed the proceedings must be abide by the said limitation and even if no period of limitation is prescribed then the proceedings must be initiated and the powers exercised within a reasonable time. Apparently, the aforesaid decision also does not help the petitioner inasmuch as in the present case, it is simply a case of correction of entries. It is the duty of the Collector to maintain the records. Once an entry has been found to be recorded as pond land which upon inquiry has been found to be recorded otherwise then it is the duty of the authority to correct the entries as provided under Section 39 of the Land Revenue Act. Section 33 of the Land Revenue Act also provides that the Collector shall maintain the records-of-right and for that purpose shall annually, or at such longer intervals as prescribed shall cause to be prepared an amended register.
Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court of the view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error. However, since the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and as already noticed do not decide the rights of the parties nor create or extinguish rights. Hence, the same shall not come in the way of the petitioner to ascertain and seek a declaration of his rights as provided under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code. Hence, this Court is not inclined to intervene at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for seeking declaration of his rights. In case if such a petition is filed before the appropriate Court, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits.
The other apprehension expressed by the petitioner that he is in settled possession which is being distributed by the State authorities is concerned, the petitioner also has appropriate remedy of making an application under Section 146 of the U.P. Revenue Code.
Needless to mention that in case if such an application is moved by the petitioner in the suit, the same shall also be considered by the Court appropriately and expeditiously.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Rakesh/-