Remanded

Mohd. Umar v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial First and 5 Ors.

Allahabad HC10 May 2019WRIC/4751/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dismissing a revision under the Land Revenue Act. It held the Summary Proceedings Order should be remitted to the Commissioner to reconsider the petitioner's title claim in light of a final civil decree expunging petitioner's name.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of Additional Commissioner set aside; matter remitted to Additional Commissioner for fresh consideration of title issue within four months.

Mohd. Umar Vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4751 of 2014

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Umar Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Judicial First And 5 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Triveni Shankar,Ajay Shankar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish,Raees Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Manish, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

¶6

The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.12.2013, passed by the Additional Commissioner and order dated 16.5.2005, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, respondent no.2.

¶7

The case in nutshell is that petitioner is Bhumidhar in possession over plot no.141, measuring 0.57 Hectare (230 heirs) situated in Mauza Mufti, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur. According to the petitioner due to mistake the name of the petitioner was expunged from the revenue record and the name of respondent no.6 was wrongly recorded. He filed an application under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act (in short the "Act") for correction of the revenue records.

¶8

It was alleged that respondent no.6 is neither Bhumidhar nor in possession of the land in dispute. It was further stated that respondent no.6 had filed a Civil Suit No.24 of 1975 against the petitioner, which was decreed by IInd Additional Munsif, Jaunpur in respect of plot nos.141 and 326. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jaunpur. By judgment and order dated 30.4.1979, the Ist Additional District Judge, Janpur allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the decree passed by the trial court and further dismissed the suit of respondent no.6. Against the said order no appeal was preferred by the contesting respondent no.6 and the said judgment became final.

¶9

The application of the petitioner filed under Section 33/39 of the Act came up before the Tehsildar on 4.6.2004, whereby the application of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi.

¶10

In the revision a specific ground was taken by the petitioner in regard to the judgment passed by the Ist Additional District

¶11

Judge in Appeal No.72 of 1976. The Additional Commissioner, Varanasi by judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 rejected the revision of the petitioner on the ground that in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Act the title cannot be looked into, as the proceedings are summary in nature. While recording the said finding, the revisional Court observed that the judgment/decree of the Civil Court dated 30.4.1979 was placed but the parties failed to produce any document to substantiate when the said suit/appeal was filed and when it was decided. Further the revisional court has also observed that the petitioner had only filed a photo copy of the judgment of the Civil Court and not the certified copy.

¶12

Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as specific ground was taken by the petitioner in his revision, the revisional court should have considered this aspect of the case that the order passed by the appellate court dismissing the suit of respondent no.6 became final as no appeal was filed against it and the matter related to plot no.141, over which the respondent no.6 had no claim and the name of the petitioner was wrongly expunged.

¶13

Sri Manish, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 submits that the revisional Court had the opportunity of considering the order dated 30.4.1979 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge in Appeal No.72 of 1976, but as the petitioner had not filed a certified copy of the judgment as such, the same was not considered. Further, he submitted that the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Act are summary in nature and the revisional court cannot go into the question of title, as such the revision of the petitioner was rightly rejected. Sri Manish has invited attention of the Court to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the dispute in civil proceeding was in regard to plot no.326 and not in regard to plot no.141.

¶14

Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner has rebutted the contention of Sri Manish and has pointed out that in para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has specifically averred that suit no.24 of 1975 was in regard to both plot nos.141 and 326.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the records of the case, I find that it was the specific case of the petitioner that the judgment and decree passed in Suit No.24 of 1975, which was in respect of plot nos.141 and 326 was set aside in Appeal No.72 of 1976 on 30.4.1979 as such the revisional court should have considered the fact that there was no dispute as to the title over the land in dispute and as far as

¶16

the contention of the petitioner that his name was wrongly expunged from the revenue record should have been considered in the light of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.72 of 1976.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi be set aside and the matter is remitted back for consideration afresh in the light of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.72 of 1976 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

The writ petition stands partly allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.5.2019 AKJ

Mohd. Umar v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial First and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Umar v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial First and 5 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

The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Vs S/S Modi Naturals Ltd.

The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Vs S/S Modi Naturals Ltd. Bisalpur Road Pilibhit

Sanjay Parashar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M D.P.S.N. Intermediate College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sohrab Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vivek Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others