Allowed

Maha Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023WRIC/35340/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to incorporate a final revisional order and correct the revenue record to restore the petitioner's name in specific agricultural plots, issuing a six-week timeline for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondent no.3 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) to incorporate the final order dated 1.11.2021 and correct the revenue record for Khasara No.1248 (0.215 hectare) and Khasara No.1249 (0

Maha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35340 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Maha Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondentLand Management Committee.

¶6

This Court vide orders dated 11.1.2023 & 3.2.2023 directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain necessary instruction in the matter but no instruction has been received by the learned Standing Counsel, as such, there is no option except to decide the writ petition finally.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for mandamus directing respondent nos.3 & 4 to ensure / restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue record in pursuance of the order dated 1.11.2021 passed by respondent no.2 in Revision No. C201911000002581, under Section 219 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as direct respondent no.3 to decide the application / representation dated 12.10.2022 filed by the petitioner for the implementation of the final order passed in the revision filed by

¶8

the petitioner in the proceeding in correction of paper case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in dispute ( Khasara No.1248 area 0.215 hectare and Khasara No.1249 area 0.038 hectare) was recorded as banjar in the revenue record. He further submitted that the allotment in respect to the aforementioned plot was made to the person, who were entitled for the allotment by the Land Management Committee on 16.8.1997. He further submitted that the allotment was approved by the authority vide order dated 10.9.1997. He further submitted that in pursuance of the allotment, the possession was delivered to the allottees and the name of allottees including the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record. He next submitted that the correction of paper proceeding was initiated and the order was passed against the petitioner by Sub-Divisional Magistrate expunging the petitioner's entry vide order dated 28.6.2019. He submitted that against the order dated 28.6.2019, petitioner filed a revision before the revisional Court, which was allowed vide order dated 1.11.2021 and the order dated 28.6.2019 was set aside. He next submitted that the revisional order dated 1.11.2021 has attained finality but the name of the petitioner has not

¶10

¶11

incorporated in the revenue record, hence petitioner filed an application dated 12.10.2022 before the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer for the implementation of the order in the revenue record but no steps have been taken by the authorities. He also submitted that the revisional order passed by the revisional Court has attained finality, as such, authorities are bound to implement the order in the revenue record. He also submitted that according to the provisions contained under Para 39 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the procedure has been prescribed for implementation of the order passed by the Court in the revenue record but the authorities have failed to follow the provisions contained under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. He further submitted that direction be issued to the authorities to implement the order in the revenue record within time bound period and correct the revenue entry in respect to petitioner’s plot.

¶12

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶13

There is no dispute about the fact that the revisional order passed in favour of the petitioner setting aside the order passed in the correction of paper case against the petitioner

¶14

¶15

has attained finality. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner filed an application for the implementation of the order but no steps have been taken by the authorities nor passed any order for not implementing the order in the revenue record.

¶16

In order to appreciate the controversy, the provision of Para No.39 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual will be relevant for perusal which is as follows:

¶17

" 39. Orders involving change in [Lekhpal]² papers (1) If in any case the effect or the order of decree passed involves a change in the Lekhpal's records (other than one which involves a change in the Khewats for which provisions exists in Rules 389 and 393 of the Revenue Court Manual), the Court shall draw up a separate order in the prescribed Form (B.R. No. 250) giving full details of the entries to be made and entries to be expunged and direct the Tahsildar to have the new entries recorded in the Lekhpal's papers. This order shall be forwarded to the Tahsildars who shall detach and return, within fifteen days from the date of receipt the perforated coupon attached thereto to the Court concerned, duly signed and dated by the Registrar Kanungo in token of having incorporated the necessary changes in the Register of Alterations and the Mutation Register. The Registrar Kanungo shall then get the necessary changes incorporated in the Khatauni and Khewat of the Lekhpal, before sending the mutation order to be placed on the guard-file of the Supervisor Kanungo.

¶18

(2) The provisions of sub-rule (1) will also be applicable to all appellate Courts who, when transmitting to the lower Court a copy of the order passed in appeal, shall attach thereto the order in the prescribed form to which effect is intended to be given, provided that when the appellate Court merely cancels without altering the order passed by the lower Court, it shall be sufficient to give the number and date of the order of the lower Court which is cancelled. This order in the prescribed form shall be forwarded to the Tahsildar by the presiding

¶19

¶20

officer of the original Court for necessary action as regards correction in the records.

¶21

(3) An entry to the effect that the form duly filled in has been despatched to the Tahsildar or lower Court, as the case may be, shall be made by the Ahalmad or other officer of the Court on the order sheet and the file shall not be consigned to the record room till the coupon of the form is returned by the Tahsildar with the note referred to in sub-rule (1). "

¶22

The operative portion of the order passed by Revisional Court dated 1.11.2021 is relevant for perusal which is as under:-

¶23

" आदशे

¶24

्ቚस्तुत नि�गरा�ी स्वीकार की जाती है। अवर न्यायालय ्ቛारा पारिरत आ्ቌेनिपत आदेश निद�ांक 28.06.2019 नि�रस्त निकया जाता है। खसरा संख्या 1248 रकबा 0.215 है०, खसरा सं० 1249 रकबा 0.038 है० पर महािሺसह पु्ቔ निगराही नि�वासी ्ቇाम सरावा के �ाम की ्ቚनिवनि4 पूव6वत रहेगी। दो�ों आवंट� प्ቔावलिलयों की ्ቚमाणि<त ्ቚतित नि�गरा�ी प्ቔावली पर रखी जाये जो आदेश का अंग रहेगी। आदेश की ्ቚतित के साथ अवर न्यायालय की प्ቔावली वापस की जाये। बाद आवश्यक काय6वाही प्ቔावली अणि@लेखागार में संतिBत की जाये।"

¶25

The aforementioned revisional order dated 1.11.2021 has attained finality as such the authorities should incorporate the order in revenue record and correct the revenue entry in respect to petitioner's Khasara No.1248 area 0.215 hectare and Khasara No.1249 area 0.038 hectare forthwith unless there is any legal impediment in the same.

¶26

Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the provision contained under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the instant petition is allowed and

¶27

¶28

direction is issued to respondent no.3 i.e. SubDivisional Magistrate, Tahsil- Hapur, DistrictHapur to incorporate the order dated 1.11.2021 in the revenue record in respect to petitioner's Khasara No.1248 area 0.215 hectare and Khasara No.1249 area 0.038 hectare as well as correct the revenue entry within period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶29

Order Date :- 27.2.2023 Rameez

¶30

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maha Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maha Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Astbhuja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Phulwasi Devi Vs Dinesh Singh and 5 Others

Naresh @ Ram Naresh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Reeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raj Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others