Allowed

Smt. Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2018WRIB/12040/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging revenue appellate orders. The Court held that the appellate orders were non-speaking and failed to address the trial court's finding that key documents were forged. The proceedings were remanded to the Additional Commissioner for fresh orders based on evidence and trial court findings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Additional Commissioner to pass fresh orders within four months of producing the certified copy.

Smt. Krishna Devi Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 12040 of 2001

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Krishna Devi Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. At Alld. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.D.Ojha,Pranav Ojha,Prateek Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anoop Mishra,Sandeep Saxena,V.K.Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate representing respondent no. 2.

¶6

The facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 instituted Case No. 88 of 1996 under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') praying to be declared as Bhumidhar of the suit property. The contention of the respondent no. 2 was that his name was recorded in the revenue and consolidation records i.e. CH Form-2A, CH Form-11 and CH Form-23 and the lease of the suit property to the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha was void. The petitioner filed a written statement contesting the said case inter-alia stating that the suit property was recorded as Banjar in the revenue records and was so recorded during the consolidation operations and consequently vested in the Gaon Sabha and the petitioner was allotted a lease of the suit property and therefore the case of respondent no. 2 was liable to be rejected. During the proceedings before the Trial Court i.e. Additional Deputy District Magistrate, the record keeper was summoned as a witness who denied the authenticity of the documents produced by respondent no. 2 in support of his case. In view of the statement given by the record keeper, the Trial Court i.e. the Additional

¶7

Deputy District Magistrate dismissed Case No. 88 of 1996 vide his judgment and order dated 23.7.1996 after recording a finding that the documents produced by respondent no. 2 in support of his case appeared to be forged and fraudulent and respondent no. 2 had not been able to prove his claim over the suit property. Against the judgment and order dated 23.7.1996 passed by the Trial Court, respondent no. 2 filed Appeal No. 42 of 1996 which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, District Agra vide judgment and order dated 7.8.1998. Through the aforesaid judgment and order, the Additional Commissioner set-aside the order of the Trial Court and decreed the suit of respondent no. 2. Against the judgment and order dated 7.8.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 57 of 1997-98. The Board of Revenue vide its judgment and order dated 27.2.2001 dismissed Second Appeal No. 57 of 1997-98. The judgments of the Appellate Courts are based on the reasoning of the said courts that the suit property could not have been allotted to the petitioner as the same was not the property of the Gaon Sabha and the name of respondent no. 2 was recorded in the revenue and consolidation records during the consolidation proceedings, therefore, respondent no. 2 was entitled to be declared a Bhumidhar of the suit property. The orders dated 7.8.1998 and 27.2.2001 have been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶8

It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the

¶9

findings recorded by the Appellate Courts in their judgments dated 7.8.1998 and 27.2.2001 have been recorded relying on the documents produced by the respondent no. 2 and without reversing the findings of the Trial Court that the documents produced by respondent no. 2 to prove his case were forged and fabricated documents and respondent no. 2 had not been able to prove his case.

¶10

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶11

A reading of the judgment dated 23.7.1996 passed by the Trial Court would show that through its aforesaid judgment, the Trial Court dismissed Case No. 88 of 1996 instituted by respondent no. 2 on the ground that the documents and records on which respondent no. 2 relied to prove his case were forged and fabricated documents and respondent no. 2 had not been able to prove the contents of the aforesaid documents. Without reversing the aforesaid findings of the Trial Court, the Appellate Courts could not have set-aside the judgment of the Trial Court and decree the suit of respondent no. 2. A reading of the judgments dated 27.2.2001 and 23.7.1996 passed by the Appellate Courts would show that in their aforesaid judgments, the Appellate Courts have not reversed the findings of the Trial Court regarding the documentary evidence produced by respondent no. 2 to prove his case. A reading of the aforesaid judgments of the Appellate Courts also show that the same are non-speaking orders in as much as no reasons have been given in the aforesaid judgments to decree Case No. 88 of 1996 instituted by respondent no. 2 under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950 and findings have been

¶12

recorded by the Appellate Courts without reference to any evidence. In the aforesaid circumstances, the orders dated 27.2.2001 and 23.7.1996 passed by the Appellate Courts are hereby set-aside and the writ petition is allowed.

¶13

The matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, District Agra to pass fresh orders in Appeal No. 42 of 1996 after considering the evidence on record and the findings of the Trial Court. The Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, District Agra shall pass fresh orders in Appeal No. 42 of 1996 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 16.4.2018 Satyam

Smt. Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chedi Lal Vs D.D.C. and Others

Hubai Vs D.D.C.

Sheo Raj Singh Vs D.D.C. and Others

Smt. Basanti Devi and Others Vs D.D.C. and Otthers

Bija Vs Board of Revenue and Others

Baij Nath Singh Vs D.D.C. and Aother