Remanded

Mahabir Singh and Others v. the Board of Revenue Ald. and Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2018WRIB/20906/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition challenged orders correcting and dismissing map discrepancy applications. The High Court found lower orders non-speaking due to lack of evidence and facts regarding area discrepancies. The petition was disposed of by setting aside all impugned orders and remanding the matter to the Additional District Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 14.3.2001, 8.12.1987, and 11.12.1986 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Additional District Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the petitioners' application after obtainin

Mahabir Singh and Others Vs the Board of Revenue Ald… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 20906 of 2001 Petitioner :- Mahabir Singh And Others Respondent :- The Board Of Revenue, Ald. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶3

Case has been called out in the revised list. No one appears for respondent no. 5.

¶4

Heard counsel for the petitioners. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 are represented by Standing Counsel.

¶5

Petitioners filed an application under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1901') praying for correction of map alleging that the area of Plot No. 260 (3-0-0-) as well as Plot No. 262 (1-5-5) as reflected in the map was less than the area as recorded in the revenue records. The petitioners are Bhumidhars of the aforesaid plots. The said application was opposed by respondent no. 5. However, the Additional District Magistrate (City), District Agra vide his order dated 11.12.1986 directed that the map be corrected by altering the area of Plot Nos. 265, 285, 256, 263 and 261. Plot No. 265 was a pond while a chak road existed on Plot No. 263. The aforesaid order also adversely affected the area of the plot of respondent no. 5 which was allegedly shown in excess in revenue map. Against the order dated 11.12.1986, respondent no. 5 filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, District Agra which was registered as Revision No. 31 of 1986 and was allowed vide order dated 8.12.1987 passed by the revisional court. Against the order dated 8.12.1987, petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (Camp Agra) which was registered as Revision No. 183/L.R./87-88 and was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 14.3.2001. The orders dated 14.3.2001 and 8.12.1987 passed by the revisional courts have been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶6

A perusal of the orders dated 8.12.1987 and 14.3.2001 passed by the revisional courts shows that the said orders have been passed on the ground that through his order dated 11.12.1986, the Additional District Magistrate (City), District Agra altered the area of different plots, a power which he did not have under Section 28 of the Act, 1901. However, no reasons have been given by the revisional courts in support of their findings that through his order dated 11.12.1986, the Additional District Magistrate (City) had altered the area of different plots. The

¶7

orders dated 8.12.1987 and 14.3.2001 passed by the revisional courts do not state clearly as to how in his impugned order dated 11.12.1986, the Additional District Magistrate (City), District Agra has altered and affected the area of different plots. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned orders passed by the revisional courts are non-speaking orders. Further, a perusal of the order dated 8.12.1987 passed by the first revisional court shows that the same is based on surmises inasmuch as while passing the aforesaid order dated 8.12.1987, the first revisional court has recorded its presumption that the petitioner was an influential person and believed in strong arm tactics. Thus, the order dated 8.12.1987 passed by the first revisional court is illegal and on the said short point, they are liable to be set-aside.

¶8

Howeve, a perusal of the order dated 11.12.1986 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), District Agra also shows that the aforesaid order has been passed by the concerned officer without stating the area of Plot Nos. 260 and 262 recorded in the revenue records. The finding recorded by the said officer in his order dated 11.12.1986 that it was undisputed that the area of Plot Nos. 260 and 262 was not correctly reflected in the revenue map is also without any evidence and the alleged discrepancy in the map has not been clearly recorded in the order. The extent of shortage in the area of disputed plots as reflected in the map has also not been stated in the order dated 11.12.1986. The facts necessary for correction of map under Section 28 of the Act, 1901 have not been stated in detail by the Additional District Magistrate (City), District Agra in his order dated 11.12.1986. Thus, the order dated 11.12.1986 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), District Agra is also not according to law. In the aforesaid circumstances, exercising the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 14.3.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue, 8.12.1987 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, District Agra as well as the order dated 11.12.1986 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), District Agra are hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Additional District Magistrate (City), District Agra to pass fresh order in accordance with law on the application of the petitioners after getting a proper report from the concerned revenue officers and stating in detail the total area of different plots as recorded in the revenue records and as reflected in the revenue map.

¶9

With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶10

Order Date :- 19.3.2018 Satyam

Mahabir Singh and Others v. the Board of Revenue Ald. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabir Singh and Others v. the Board of Revenue Ald. 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

Smt. Meera and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others

Nisar Ahmed Vs D.D.C. and Others

Tara Chandera and Others Vs Collector Sahranpur and Others

Ganga Saran Vs D.D.C. and Others

Mithai Lal Vs D.D.C. Ghazipur and Another

Bhagirathi Vs D.D.C. and Others