Dismissed

Bhaiyuddin and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2024/298/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash orders regarding land allotment based on possession. The Court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal provision for allotment of land recorded as water bodies, festival grounds, or reserved categories under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no right to claim land on basis of possession validated.

Bhaiyuddin and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29191

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 298 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Bhaiyuddin And Another

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Home Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirmit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by respondent no.3 as well as the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 passed by respondent no.4.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are claiming their rights over gata numbers on the basis of possession. The said gata numbers are mentioned in the order dated 28.06.2018. The relevant extract of the said order is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶9

"जि�सके आधार पर वादीगण ्ቛारा वाद प्ቔ दिदनांक 29.05.2004 गाटा संख्या - 277/0.235 हे० , 124/0.190 हे० , 176/0.126 हे० , 128/1.708 हे० , 138/0.443 हे० , 175/0.139 हे० , 159/0.672 हे० , 278/0.076 हे० , 263/0.022 हे० , 127/0.696 हे० , 130/0.013 हे० , 174/0.830 हे० , 276/0.061 हे० जि�सके पुराने नम्बर 102/7-5-0, 97/1-2-7, 112/3-1-0, 238/0-4-0, 239/0-3-0, 233/8-17-0, 232/3-19-9, 123/5-7-0, 110/0-4-0, 230/0-15-0, 231/1-1-0, 229/0-3-0, 294/0-2-0, 293/0-1-0, 302/304/2-1-17 पर �०दिव०अधिध० के पूव! से वादीगणों के बु�ुग# का कब्�ा चला आने तथा उन पर लगे पेड़ों पर वादीगण का कब्�ा स्वीकार दिकए �ाने के कारण वादीय भूदि. पर ्ቇा. सभा का ना. खारिर� कर वादीगणों का ना. द�! दिकए �ाने का अनुरोध दिकया गया। वादीगण ्ቛारा वाद प्ቔ .ें दቦኋा!ए गए गाटा संख्या - 128, गाटा संख्या -175 �ो०चक आकार प्ቔ 45 .ें ्ቦेणी 6(1) की �ल.्ሿ भूदि. तालाब के रूप .ें द�! है �ो दिक सुरधि;त भूदि. की ्ቦेणी .ें आता है। वाद .ें उजि<खिखत गाटा संख्या -278 �ो०चक आकार प्ቔ 45 .े ्ቦेणी 6(2) .ें होली का स्थान के रूप .े द�! है तथा वाद प्ቔ ने उजि<खिखत गाटा संख्या 124 व गाटा संख्या -176 �ो चक आकार प्ቔ 45 .े ्ቦेणी 6 (3) .ें श्.ቦኋान के रूप .ें है। इसके अधितरिर्ሹ प्ቔावली .ें उपलब्ध खतौनी फसली , व्ቧ! 1410-1415 .ें गाटा -277 नवीन परती के रूप .ें तथा गाटा संख्या -159 खखिलहान के रूप तथा गाटा -263 .ें चक.ाग! के रूप .ें द�! है। इसके अधितरिर्ሹ गाटा संख्या -276 .ुख्य .ाग! के रूप .ें द�! है। वादीगणों ्ቛारा अधिधकांቦኋ जि�न गाटो पर अपना दावा ्ቚस्तुत दिकया गया वह सभी या तो सुरधि;त भूदि. है जि�सपर कभी भी दिकसी व्यदि्ሹ के सं्ቅ.णीय भूदि.धर के अधिधकार परिरपक्व नहीं हो सकते है। इसके अधितरिर्ሹ यह भी स्प्ቖ है दिक बं�र �ोत नही है और यह गांव सभा .ें दिनदिहत होती है ऐसी भूदि. .ें ्ቚधितकूल कब्�े के ्ቛारा कोई

¶10

अधिधकार ्ቚो्ሽत नहीं होता है। ( फूलचन्द बना. उ०्ቚ०राज्य , 1996 आर०डी० 471: 1996 आर०�े० 470: 196(2) ए०डब्लू० सी० 3102 तथा .ोतीलाल बना. हीरालाल 1996 आर०डी० 612) । वादीगण ्ቛारा वादीय भूदि. पर ्ቇा. सभा का ना. द�! होने पर ्ቇा. सभा .ें दिनदिहत भूदि. .ें हक का दावा दिकया गया है। इस सम्बन्ध .ें यह दिवदिदत है दिक गांव सभा .ें दिनदिहत भूदि. .ें कोई काश्तकारी अधिधकार्ቚ ोद् भूत नहीं होता और कोई व्यदि्ሹ गांव सभा .ें दिनदिहत भूदि. .ें हक का दावा नहीं कर सकते , चाहे उनका कब्�ा दिनदिहत होने की धितथिथ अथा!त 1 �ुलाई 1952 से ही हो। ( गांव सभा , बना. अकाली देवी , 1996 आर 0 डी 0236 : 1996 आर०�े० 40: 1996(1) ए०डब्लू०सी० 317: 1996 आर०�े 055) । स्प्ቖ है दिक वादीगण ्ቛारा अपने वादप्ቔ के ्ቛारा सुरधि;त भूदि. .ें उजि<खिखत अधिधकांቦኋ गाटा संख्याओं पर कब्�े के आधार पर सं्ቅ.णीय भूदि.धर के अधिधकार घोदि्ቧत दिकए �ाने का अनुरोध दिकया गया है वादी ्ቛारा ऐसा कोई साቌኚय अपने �बदिक सुरधि;त भूदि. पर कब्�े के आधार पर दिकसी भी व्यदि्ሹ के भौदि.क अधिधकार कभी भी परिरपक्व नहीं हो सकते है। ऐसी ቝኌस्थधित .े वादीगण ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत दावा पो्ቧणीय ्ቚतीत नही होता है तथा दावा वादी दिनरस्त दिकए �ाने योग्य है। "

¶11

It is further submitted that the revisional order has been passed without jurisdiction as the revision is not maintainable against the final order passed by the first appellate court.

¶12

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the same argument was raised by learned counsel for the petitioners on the last date when the matter was listed on 19.03.2024 but when this fact brought to the notice of the Court that the gata numbers on which the petitioners are claiming their rights on the basis of possession are 'Jal Magan Bhumi', ' Talab', 'Plane for Holi Festival', 'Shamshan', 'Naveen Parti', 'Khalihan', 'Chak Marg' and 'Banjar, this Court vide its order dated 19.03.2024 asked learned counsel for the petitioners to show any law under which the right on the basis of possession over the land recorded as mentioned above in the revenue records. The order dated 19.03.2024 is quoted herein below:-

¶13

“Heard.

¶14

It appears from the impugned orders that some gatas out of the gatas over which the petitioners are claiming their rights and instituted a suit under Section 229(1) B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, were recorded as 'Jal Magan Bhumi', ' Talab', 'Plane for Holi Festival', 'Shamshan', 'Naveen Parti', 'Khalihan', 'Chak Marg' and 'Banjar'.

¶15

On being asked to show the law under which the rights can be provided on the basis of possession over land recorded as 'Jal Magan Bhumi', ' Talab', 'Plane for Holi Festival', 'Shamshan', 'Naveen Parti', 'Khalihan', 'Chak Marg' and 'Banjar', learned Counsel for the petitioners says that he may be granted some reasonable time to prepare his case.

¶16

Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day. List this case in the month of April 2024 as fresh.”

¶17

Today, when the matter was taken up, this Court has asked learned counsel for petitioners to argue as per earlier order of this Court dated

¶18

19.03.2024 whether any right can be provided on the basis of possession over the land recorded as above in the revenue records, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show any provision or law in his favour and also not disputed that the land on which the petitioners are claiming their rights are the land entered in the revenue records as mentioned above. Gata no.128 and 175 are entered as Jal Magan Bhumi/Pond under category 6 (i) in form aakar patra 45 and as per Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1950), no bhumidhari rights can accrue. The land in gata no.278 is the land under category 6 (ii) as entered in aakar patra 45 i.e. place to play Holi, which is barred by Section 132 of Act, 1950. The land in gata no.176 is the land under category 6 (iii) as entered Shamshan in aakar patra 45, which is also barred by Section 132 of Act, 1950. The land in gata no.277 is entered as Naveen parti as mentioned in para 124 (5) of the Land Records Manual which can be alloted by following the procedure as provided under Section 195 of the Act, 1950. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the land was alloted in their favour by following the procedure under Section 195 of the Act, 1950. The land in gata no.159 is entered as Khalihan, 263 as chak marg, 276 as main road, hence it can also not be alloted as per Section 132 of the Act, 1950 and rest of the land is the reserved land which also cannot be alloted to anyone as per Section 132 of Act, 1950.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners has shown his inability to provide any law or provision of the statute for allotment of such land on the basis of possession in favour of the petitioners or entering the name of the petitioners in the reveue records and also not disputed the land on which they are claiming their rights are the land which are recorded as 'Jal Magan Bhumi', ' Talab', 'Plane for Holi Festival', 'Shamshan', 'Naveen Parti', 'Khalihan', 'Chak Marg' and 'Banjar'.

¶20

So far the arguments advanced that the revisional court has no jurisdicton to entertain the matter as no revision lies against the order of Ist appellate court is concerned, it would be petinent to mention that the petitioners themselves had filed the revision and argued before the revisional court but after judgment had gone against them now they have challenged the jurisdiction of the revisional court. Such a plea has been taken by the petitioners cannot be entertained, more particularly in view of the undisputed facts as mentioned in the preceeding paragraphs 5 & 6. It is not a fit case to interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶21

In view of facts and circumstances of case as well as the discussion made hereinabove, the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Renu/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhaiyuddin and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaiyuddin and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home Revenue, Lucknow and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saraswati Devi and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Dheeraj Singh and 2 Others Vs Ahibaran Singh and 3 Others

Vinay Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Thru.Its President and 14 Others

Ram Saran Vs Additional Commissioner J Lucknow and Others

Mohammad Istiyaq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 12 Others

Surendra Bahadur Singh and Others Vs Chakbandi Aayukt U.P. Saptam Tal Indra Bhawan, Lko. and Another