Disposed

Vasudev Prasad v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and 6 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023WRIC/10560/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a remand order. Finding three contradictory reports regarding gata measurements, the court did not quash the remand but directed an additional District Magistrate to conduct a fresh spot inspection with all parties present.

What did the court decide?

Disposed without interfering with the remand order; directed Additional District Magistrate to conduct spot inspection of all gatas yielding to report dated 08-01-2019.

Vasudev Prasad Vs Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10560 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Vasudev Prasad

¶4

Respondent :- Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Misra Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Deepak Gaur

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

1.Heard Shri Pankaj Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel representing Staterespondents.

¶7

2.This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02-032023 whereby the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi has set aside the order dated 25-05-2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Jhansi and remanded the matter to him to decide the case again after getting measurements of all the gata numbers in the close vicinity and after calling for report regarding the same and also after providing both the parties to submit objections against such report(s) and also after hearing them.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bhumidhar of land covered by Gata No.1062 whereas the land covered by Gata No.1601 is recorded as Chak road and the land covered by Gata No. 1059 belongs to the private respondents, who are the co-sharers along with the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 38 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 in which an inspection report dated 0602-2019 was submitted by the Draftsman (Consolidation) and after recording the statements and cross-examination of the said Draftsman, the report was confirmed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that during the course of the proceedings, the deficiency to the extent of 0.080 hectare was found in relation to the petitioner's Gata No. 1062, which was directed to be completed from the adjoining Gata No. 1059 and the order was passed on 25-05-2019 which was perfectly in accordance with law. The submission is that the said order has been set aside by the Commissioner in a revision filed by the private respondents and the matter has been unnecessarily remanded.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that if the private respondents had a grievance, they should have challenged the report of the Draftsman(Consolidation) and even otherwise in their own case registered under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Revenue Inspector has submitted a report dated 24-02-2023 prior to passing of the impugned order that the case of the private respondents is not affected by proceedings under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the order impugned is an order of remand, which is non-injurious to the petitioner and moreover the same has been passed on the ground that there is contradiction in the various reports on records and, therefore, both the parties would have full opportunity to file objections and lead evidence in support of their respective cases.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I find that insofar as the report dated 06-02-2019 is concerned, it has been observed by the Commissioner that in the said report, measurements of only three gatas have been recorded whereas in a previous report dated 08-01-2019, the measurements of eight gatas were shown. On this basis, finding has been recorded that the proceeding can be decided only after carrying out the measurements of the adjoining gatas and therefore, for this purpose the matter has been remanded. I find that insofar as the contention of the petitioner that since the report has been submitted in the case filed by the respondents themselves that their gata is not affected by Section 38, there are three reports which are contradictory to each other. The first report is dated 0801-2019, the second report is dated 06-02-2019 and the third report is dated 24-02-2023. As on today there is no final adjudication in respect of the deficiency/sufficiency/decrease/increase of the areas of the respective gatas except an order dated 25-05-2019 which was based upon one of the reports dated 06-02-2019. The said order has already been set aside by the Revisional Court by means of the order impugned.

¶13

Since the matter pertains to the respective areas of the tenure holders of the adjoining gatas, the same is required to be heard and decided on the basis of a clear inspection/measurements report, where the rights of the parties have to be taken care of.

¶14

In view of three contradictory reports, I do not find any good ground to restrict the proceedings pursuant to the order of the remand, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

¶15

In view of above, without interfering with the order of remand, this petition is disposed of directing the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Jhansi to get carried out an spot inspection of all the gatas which have been recorded in the report dated 08-01-2019 by appointing a team of competent Revenue Officers.

¶16

The inspection shall be carried out in the presence of all the parties.

¶17

12.Thereafter, the inspection report would be submitted pursuant to the said inspection and the parties shall be allowed to file objections within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of report.

¶18

13.The aforesaid report shall be compared with the report dated 06-02-2019 as well as the subsequent report dated 24-02-2023.

¶19

On the basis of the aforesaid reports, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Jhansi shall conclude the proceedings pursuant to the remand order within a period of three months from the date of filing of objections by the respective parties and after giving full opportunity of hearing to make their say.

¶20

Till the conclusion of the proceedings, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the nature and possession over the concerned gatas.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 pks

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vasudev Prasad v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudev Prasad v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and 6 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. Jaitunnisha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Nandan Vs State of U.P. and 25 Others

Hira Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vinay Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Kamla Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Dhani Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others