Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54615 of 2017 Petitioner :- Umar Raja Khan Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Judl.) & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 29.1.2016 passed by the second respondent, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner and one Smt. Shahnaj Bi against kuras proposed by the Lekhpal have been rejected and the kuras suggested by him have been approved. A further direction has been issued to prepare a final decree accordingly. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.1.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Lekhpal in his report has only allotted the first three kuras to different parties, whereas the fourth kura prepared by him has not been allotted to any party. However, the Sub Divisional Officer, while confirming the kuras, has allotted the kura no.4 to the plaintiffs. It is urged that thus the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer allotting kura no.4 to the plaintiffs is wholly illegal. It is further submitted that the report of Lekhpal does not specifically mention that the crop standing over kura no.4 belong to the plaintiffs and thus, kura no.4 has been wrongly allotted to them.
A perusal of the report of Lekhpal shows that he had prepared in all four kuras. In the first kura, he mentioned about the existence of abadi of Ahmad Raza Khan (defendant no.2), therefore the trial court allotted this kura to him. In the second kura, the Lekhpal reported that the trees (popular) standing over it belongs to Kasim Raza Khan (defendant no.3), therefore, the trial court allotted this kura to him. The Lekhpal reported about the existence of foundation over 0.031 hectare of kura no.3, which is the land sold by the petitioner and thus it has been allotted to petitioner jointly with Shahnaj Bi. The fourth kura, over which there was standing crop, has been allotted to the plaintiffs. Thus, it is not correct that the Lekhpal has made any allotment of the kuras. The allotment of all the kuras was in fact done by the trial court by the order impugned.
On a query made by the Court as to whether any objection was filed by the petitioner claiming crop standing over kura no.4 as belonging to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner could not reply to the query nor could show any document wherein such a plea was raised. Thus, there is also no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that kura no.4 should not have been allotted to the plaintiffs.
No other submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 29.11.2017 SL