Hari Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the illegal and arbitrary impugned order dated 22.05.2024, which is Annexure no.1 of this Writ Petition as well as any consequential orders passed in pursuance thereof, after summoning the same.

¶12

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the Respondents from interfering in the peaceful position of the Petitioner and further restrain the Respondents from dispossessing the poor Petitioner and encroaching upon his land bearing Gata No. 1287 admeasuring One Biswa/0.0125 hectares situated in Village and Pargana Fatehpur-84, Tehsil Bangarmau, District Unnao.

¶13

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus issuing appropriate directions to the Respondent No. 4 to make necessary corrections in the revenue records to reflect One Biswa (0.0125 hectares) as the correct area of the Petitioner's plot of land bearing Gata No. 1287, situated in Village and Pargana Fatehpur-84, Tehsil Bangarmau, District Unnao, which was allotted to the Petitioner's father, Late Bhola Singh, instead of one Biswanshi (1/20th of a Biswa or

¶14

Page No.2

¶15

approximately 68.06 square feet, 0.0006 hectares), erroneously recorded by the Court of Assistant Collector/Tehsildar Safipur, District Unnao, in its order dated 05.06.1993, through which the title of the Petitioner's father was affirmed.

¶16

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to provide adequate security to the Petitioner and his family against the local land mafia.

¶17

v. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay exemplary compensation to the Petitioner for preventing him from enjoying his property, causing deterioration of the construction quality of his house by obstructing necessary renovations, and for inflicting significant mental anguish.

¶18

vi. Issue any other writ, order or direction as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

vii. Also award exemplary cost for the hardships suffered by him as also the cost of this petition, to the Petitioner."

¶20

(3) The petitioner had earlier filed a petition bearing Writ-C No.4246 of 2023 seeking the following reliefs-

¶21

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the Opposite Parties from dispossessing the poor Petitioner and encroaching upon his land bearing Gata No.1287 admeasuring One Biswa/ 0.0125 hectares situated in Village and Pargana Fatehpur-Chaurasi, Tehsil Bangarmau,District - Unnao.

¶22

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No.05 to expeditiously decide the correction application dated 03.03.2023 which is Annexure no.7 of the instant Writ Petition seeking the correction of the clerical error which had crept in the Order dated 05.06.1993, of the Assistant Collector / Tehsildar Safipur, District Unnao."

¶23

(4) The said petition was disposed of on 24.05.2023 in the following terms:-

¶24

"Heard.

¶25

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following main relief:

¶26

Page No.3

¶27

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the Opposite Parties from dispossessing the poor Petitioner and encroaching upon his land bearing Gata No.1287 admeasuring One Biswa/ 0.0125 hectares situated in Village and Pargana Fatehpur-Chaurasi, Tehsil Bangarmau,District - Unnao.

¶28

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No.05 to expeditiously decide the correction application dated 03.03.2023 which is Annexure no.7 of the instant Writ Petition seeking the correction of the clerical error which had crept in the Order dated 05.06.1993, of the Assistant Collector / Tehsildar Safipur, District Unnao."

¶29

It is said that in the year 1989 notices were issued to the father of the petitioner under Rule 15(B) of the U.P Z.A. & L.R. Rules 1952, however, in the proceedings initiated it was found that the father of the petitioner was in possession since long, therefore, benefit of Section 123 (1) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950 was ordered to be given to the petitioner. Consequently, the land bearing Gata No.1287, situated at Village and Pargana - Patchpur Chaurasi, Tehsil - Bangarmau, Distrcit - Unnao was ordered to be recorded in the name of the petitioner to the extent of 1 Biswanshi only. Now, fresh proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner as claimed under Rule 115-D. Now, fresh notice have been issued to the petitioner by the Lekhpal alleging encroachment on excess land. The contention is this has been done only on account of a clerical error in the earlier order dated 5.6.1993 by which the rights were settled in favour of the petitioner's father to the extent of 1 Biswanshi. He says that the land should have been at least 1 Biswa, however, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy as to the basis for his claim for 1 Biswa land based on the said order.

¶30

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel says that as per the provisions of Rule 115(O) of the Rules 1952 maximum of 250 Sq. Meters could be settled with the petitioner for housing purposes under the earlier Rules of 1952.

¶31

Be that as it may, if any such correction application has been filed for correction of order dated 05.06.1993 and is otherwise maintainable in law unless it is barred by limitation etc., the same may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within three months. Apart from it, we see no reason to pass any other order.

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of. "

¶33

Page No.4

¶34

(5) The Court had categorically observed inter alia that counsel for the petitioner had not been able to satisfy as to the basis for his claim of 1 Biswa land based on the said order. This is obviously a reference to the satisfaction of the court in the said proceedings. However, considering the assertion of the petitioner that an application for correction was pending, it was observed- 'Be that as it may, if any such correction application has been filed for correction of order dated 05.06.1993 and is otherwise maintainable in law unless it is barred by limitation etc., the same may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within three months. Apart from it, we see no reason to pass any other order'.

¶35

(6) Now, an order has been passed by the S.D.M. concerned. The petitioner is not satisfied with it. We cannot in these subsequent proceeding enter into question of title or possession. Essentially the grievance of the petitioner is that while passing the order 06.05.1993 which according to him is referable to Section-123 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, instead of mentioning the area which was settled with his father as 1350 Sq. Ft., inadvertently 68 Sq. Ft. was mentioned and apparently it appears that in fact the house has been constructed on an area more than 68 Sq. Ft. but the fact remains that the order dated 06.05.1993 mentions the area for which the rights were settled with petitioner's father under Section 123 was 68 Sq. Ft. We have already observed in the earlier order that we were not satisfied on the merits of the matter but this was obviously subject to decision on the correction application. That decision has been taken. The assertion of learned counsel for the

¶36

Page No.5

¶37

petitioner is that the decision has not been taken. We may refer to relevant extract in this regard:-

¶38

‟ izkFkhZ ds uke xzke o ijxuk Qrsgiqj pkSjklh rglhy ckaxjem tuin mUuko dh [krkSuh lu 1425&1430 Q0 eas vafdr xkVk la[;k 1318@0-1960 gs0 o 1361@0-2260 gs0 dqy jdck 0-4220 gs0 esa fgLlk 1@2 Hkkx ds vuqlkj jdck 0-2110 gs0 o xkVk la[;k dqy jdck 0-4220 gs0 es fgLlk 1@2 Hkkx ds vuqlkj jdck 0-2110 gs0 o xkVk la[;k 1305@0-1010 gs0 o 1401@0-1390 gs0 o 1423@0-0510 gs0 o 1462@0-2280 gs0 o 1468@01260 gs0 dqy jdck 0-6450 gs0 esa fgLlk 1@4 Hkkx ds vuqlkj jdck 0- 1610 gs0 o xkVk la[;k 5@1-8460 gs0 esa fgLlk 1@12 Hkkx ds vuqlkj jdck 0-1538 gs0 gksrk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ gfjdju flag ds izkIr vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj fgLls dh dqy Hkwfe 0-5256 gs0 gksrh gSA izkFkhZ ds ikl dLCkk ¼uxj iapk;r Qrsgiqj pSjklh½ es ,d vkoklh; edku gSA izkFkhZ }kjk xkVk la[;k 1318 esa vius fgLls dh Hkwfe dks IykV ds :i esa fodz; dh tk jgh gSA

¶39

vr% LFkyh; o vfHkys[kh; tkap o xzkeokfl;ksa ds c;ku ls Li"V gS fd iwoZ esa ekSds ij izkFkhZ ds firk }kjk ,d fclokalh Hkwfe ij xqeVh j[kdj dCtk fd;k x;k Fkk mlh dze esa U;k;ky; rglhynkj lQhiqj }kjk vkns'k fnukad 05-06-1993 esa izkFkhZ ds firk ds i{k esa ek= ,d folaoklh Hkwfe gsrq ik= ik;k x;k FkkA fdUrq rRle; izkFkhZ ds firk Hkksyk flag iq= fryd ds i{k es fu;ekuqlkj Hkwfe dk vkcVu ugh fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ gfjdju ds dFkukuqlkj U;k;ky; }kjk =qfVo'k ,d fclqok ds LFkku ij ,d fclokalh vafdr fd;k x;k gS tks vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gSA rnuqlkj izkFkhZ ds izR;kosnu fnukad 26-06-2023 dks fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA ˝

¶40

(7) In our opinion, a decision has been taken by the S.D.M., Bangarmau, Unnao on the subject. Now, one more thing is there, that is, the order, correction of which was sought, was passed on 06.05.1993 and for the first time, an application was filed on 03.03.2023 i.e. almost after thirty years.

¶41

(8) Now, we under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into disputed questions of fact certainly not questions of fact involving title. Once the petitioner is claiming rights in respect of land more than 68 Sq. Ft. i.e. to the extent of 1350 Sq. Ft. in the Gata in question in respect of which the order dated 06.05.1993 was passed, then question of title

¶42

Page No.6

¶43

would necessarily be involved as the area of the land would get enhanced. Petitioner may seek adequate declaration in this regard before the appropriate forum whether it be before the revenue court or the civil court, as the case may be, if it is otherwise permissible but we cannot venture any further in the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove.

¶44

(9) Even if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted that the order dated 06.05.1993 is referable to Section 123, what appears to be the case is that the father of the petitioner may have built house over certain portion of the lands in question which were ultimately settled in his favour by the order dated 06.05.1993, now, the son files an application for correction after thirty years saying that in fact the house was built on an area much more than 68 Sq. Ft. These are all factual issues. Merely because, there may be certain revenue records as claimed by the petitioner which may show the area on which the house was built as one Biswa instead of one Biswanshi, that cannot be considered and examined in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it would be a matter of evidence and appreciation of evidence, especially in view of the order passed in the earlier writ petition, therefore, the appropriate remedy if at all is for the petitioner to file a suit for declaration or such other suit as may be permissible in law.

¶45

(10) With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶46

(11) Accordingly, the application for impleadment bearing

¶47

C.M. Application No.2 of 2024 is also disposed of.

¶48

Page No.7

¶49

(12) We make it clear that our order shall not come in the way of the opposite parties in proceedings which may have been initiated under the relevant statutes against the petitioner as it is informed that some proceedings have been initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

¶50

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J. )

¶51

Order Date :- 13.11.2024 Shanu/-

¶52

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hari Karan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Karan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar Lko Thru. Chief Manager and Authorized Officer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 8 Others

Abhishek Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Awas Evam Shahari Niyojn Lko.

M/S Engineer Mukesh,Thru. Its Partner Mukesh Agarwal vs Union of India Min. of Finance Deptt. of Revenue and 2 Others

Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Lucknow Vs Madhu Kapoor

Kuldeep Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Excise Lko. and 2 Others

Chandra Pratap Tiwari Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Petroleum and Gas, New Delhi and Others