Dismissed

Shabbir and Another v. Addl. Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2019WRIC/3033/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders that struck petitioners' names from land records. The Court found no interference warranted as petitioners failed to file lease deeds or evidence before lower courts, and the Court could not disrupt factual findings regarding expired leases.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of interference in the factual findings of the courts below.

Shabbir and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner and 2 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3033 of 2014

¶3

Petitioner :- Shabbir And Another Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shakti Dhar Dube,Neeraj Dube,S.C. Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Shri Neeraj Dube, one of the learned counsel for the petitioners has sent his illness slip. However, Shri S.C. Kushwaha, another counsel shown in the cause list appears for the petitioners and he states that he has filed his vakalatnama on 13.4.2015. This case is, therefore, taken up.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.

¶7

Heard Shri S.C. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.7.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Modinagar, District Ghaziabad, respondent no. 2 in Original Case No.3/2003-04 and the order dated 20.9.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 60/2012-13. The averments in the writ petition are that in the year 1991, the petitioner no. 1 was allotted a sirdari lease by the respondent no. 1 over Khasra No. 183/3 having an area 1.012 Hectares situated at Village Tauri 13 Biswa, Pargana Jalalabad, Tehsil Modinagar, District Ghaziabad and the petitioner no. 2 was allotted the land of Khasra No. 183/4 having an area of 1.012 Hectares in the same year. Proceedings under Section 186 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were initiated against the petitioners by the Assistant Collector, Modinagar but the same was dropped on 17.5.2002. By an order dated 5.12.2006, on a revision being filed by the State, the respondent no. 1 remanded the matter back for reconsideration after giving opportunity to the petitioners. In the objections filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 2, the petitioners asserted that the sirdari lease was granted to them and they were not asamis. By an order dated 10.2.2009, the respondent no. 2 allowed the application of the State and directed that the entry of the names of the petitioners be struck off from the record and the land be recorded as previously as "navin parti", that is to say, barren land, being the property of the Gaon Sabha. This order was

¶9

challenged by the petitioners and others in a revision before the respondent no. 1, which Authority by means of an order dated 12.10.2009 set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 2 and directed that proper opportunity should be afforded to the petitioners to lead evidence before passing the order.

¶10

Thereafter, by means of the impugned order dated 8.7.2013, the respondent no. 2 affirmed the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by her predecessor. This order came to be challenged by the petitioners in revision filed before the respondent no. 1 by means of a Revision No. 60/2012-13. By means of an order dated 20.9.2013, this revision was rejected and hence this writ petition was filed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the clear statement made by them in the objections filed before the respondent no. 2 that the patta granted to the petitioners with respect to the land in dispute was that of sirdari and not asami, the impugned orders were passed which are patently wrong and deserves to be set aside.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has contended that as per the record available there is sufficient evidence to show that the patta granted to the petitioners was that of an asami which could be granted only for a period of five years and the admitted date of the lease being 12.1.1991, the term of the lease has evidently came to an end. It is contended that no indulgence is required to be granted to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 8.7.2013 reveals that after the record of the case was received in the Court of the respondent no. 2, for nearly a period of three years, the petitioners did not file any evidence. On 21.12.2012 the petitioners were granted a last opportunity to file their evidence. Only one Dilshad Ali s/o Zameel Ahmad filed an affidavit on 7.3.2013 and no other person (including the petitioners) filed any evidence. After perusing the evidence on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the respondent no. 2 observed that no such evidence has been filed on behalf of the petitioners which could demonstrate any right to maintain their possession over the land in dispute. The Court observed that the case is pending for the last 10 years and it is clear that the lease was that of asami for which the period is five years only. As per the report from the Tehsildar, the entry of asami was directed to be struck off and mutation was directed to be carried out. It was also observed that three of the objectors had filed an affidavit taking back their objections for striking off the entry of asami and approving the resuming of the land of the Gaon Sabha, for those reasons the respondent no. 2 affirmed the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by her

¶13

predecessor.

¶14

The revisional court in its order has observed that as per the record available the lease for asami is admissible for maximum period of five years and the entry of asami was struck off in accordance with law. The revisional court found no error in the order passed by the respondent no. 2.

¶15

It has to be seen that even in this writ petition, the petitioners have not filed the lease deeds which they allege were executed in their favour which are stated to be sirdari lease. It has also not been contended that the petitioners had filed all material evidence before the courts below and that they were not considered. Thus, there is no material before this Court to find that the orders impugned are erroneous or illegal.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in a finding of facts that has been recorded by the courts below. No reason for interference is called for and this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.3.2019 A. V. Singh

¶18

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

Shabbir and Another v. Addl. Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabbir and Another v. Addl. Commissioner and 2 Ors.

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

Suresh Chandra Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sant Kabir Nagar and 6 Others

Mool Chand Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Shahar Azamgarh and 5 Others

Tanveer Alam Vs Principal Judge Family Court Rampur and Another

Moti Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Nanhki Balmiki Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Seema Singh Vs Tehsildar