Dismissed

Yogendra Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2021WPIL/1623/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition sought a writ of mandamus to cancel revenue records changing talab land to Navin Parti and Abadi land and to restore the land to its original pond status. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the entries were made during consolidation proceedings in 1996 without challenge. The court held that while there is a presumption of regularity regarding orders passed in cons

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the consolidation order by taking appropriate remedy permissible under the law.

Yogendra Kumar Gaur Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1623 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Gaur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Nizam Uddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

The Public Interest Litigation has been filed with the

¶7

following prayers quoted here-under for ready reference:-

¶8

1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the Gata No.1085/0.857 pertaining to his old no.2159 hectare which is recorded as Navin Parti & Abadi land as mentioned in the current Khatauni of fasli year 1424-1429 accordingly and to restore the Gata No.1334 fasli, 1320 fasli and 1359 fasli is recorded as Pond earlier in the revenue record and to be marked in the pond of Gata No.1085/0.857 is recorded as Talab situate in village Arwasi Mai Bahaduragarh Tehsil Phoolpur, Pargana Sikandara District Prayagraj in original shape.

¶9

2 . Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents concerned to decide the application/representation dated 08.11.2019 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice which is pending before the respondent No. 2 & 3.

¶10

3 . Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

4 . Award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of Gata (old) No.2159 was recorded as land of Talab but thereafter in the consolidation proceedings, it was recorded as Navin Parti and Abadi. Apart from the land of Talab . It could not have been recorded as Navin Parti and Abadi land. Thus, the petitioner made

¶13

¶14

a representation to challenge the entries of Gata No. 1085 with a prayer to restore it as Talab.

¶15

We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶16

The pleadings of the petition show that entries in revenue record the land was changed of the consolidation proceedings. According to petitioner himself, the order was passed in the year 1996 in consolidation though allegations have been made regarding manipulation in the record but then there is no challenge to the order passed in the consolidation proceedings.

¶17

Paragraphs No. 22 to 24 of the petition are quoted hereunder for ready reference to show that the petitioner knowing it well that change in record took place pursuant to the consolidation proceedings in the year 1996 yet he did not challenge the order passed therein.

¶18

“22. That during consolidation proceeding the forgery has been taken place in the record of Talab and some rakba has been divided into 3 parts i.e. 1085 Ka rakba 2159, 1085 Kha rakba 2159 & 1085 Ga rakba 2159 measuring area-15 Bigha, 8 bigha 3 bigha 15 biswa.

¶19

23. That in the year 1996 the consolidation proceeding has completed finally which is recorded as Khasra No.1333 fasli area of the plot no.2159/1 6 bigha 8 biswa & 2159/2 2 biswa total 610 bigha the talab is situated in gata no.1452.

¶20

24. That during consolidation proceeding due to manipulation in collusions with the authority concerned has changed nature of land by making encroachment in the aforesaid Gatas which is quite illegal and against the provisions of law.”

¶21

The change in the revenue record is not at the instance of the authorities themselves but pursuant to the consolidation proceedings and accordingly the entries have been made in the revenue record. A part of the gata is still maintained as Talab while part has been recorded as Navin Patri and Abadi land. The change in the revenue record took place in the year 1996 i.e.

¶22

¶23

almost 24 years back and otherwise there is no challenge to the order passed in the consolidation proceedings. Thus, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted in absence of it.

¶24

It is more so when there remains presumption about the proper order in the consolidation proceedings to record the part of the land as Navin Parti and Abadi. It may be after selling apart the other land as Talab but finding on it is recorded by this court in the absence of challenge to the order passed in the consolidation proceedings.

¶25

Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition cannot be granted. The petition is dismissed.

¶26

However, it is with the liberty to take proper remedies in the matter and if any illegality was committed in the consolidation proceedings, then to challenge the said order by taking appropriate remedy as is permissible under the law and for which the dismissal of the petition would not come in the way of the petitioner.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation and liberty the writ petition is dismissed .

¶28

Order Date :- 5.1.2021 piyush

Yogendra Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swati Mathur Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Prabhu Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Zahid Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogendra Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chaturi Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Horam Giri Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others