Dismissed¶24

Savit Ram Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2024WRIC/1002616/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gata No. 166; correction of revenue records; mutation; Sections 33/39 U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901; Section 219 revision; Section 40A Act of 1901; Section 39 U.P. Revenue Code 2006; Section 229-B U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950; declaratory suit for title; 28-year delay in correction application; restoration application Chandra Bhan Singh; Bhinga, District Shrawasti; Devipatan Mandal, Gonda; writ petition dismissed (Lucknow Bench, 11.3.2024).

What did the court decide?

Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (now repealed) and Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016) make it clear that no order passed in a mutation case or in a case for correction of records shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit. ¶15

Savit Ram Objection Filed Vs Additional Commissioner Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether correction of long-standing entries in the revenue records relating to Gata No. 166, involving disputed questions of fact, could be effected in summary proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Considering the statutory provisions and the facts of the case (including that correction was sought after about 28 years, the disputed questions of fact, the findings of the courts below, and the withdrawal of the petitioner's Section 229-B suit), the Court was not inclined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revenue records - correction of entries, Gata No. 166 - petitioner's mutation allowed 24.03.1975 on sale deed, recording 0.490 acre (instead of 0.890 acre) in his name; application in 2004, after about 28 years, under Sections 33/39, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 allowed by SDO, Bhinga (19.10.2004) deleting Chandra Pal Singh's entry (up to 0.162 hectare); restoration allowed by SDM, Bhinga (12.09.2006) holding the dispute involved title and lay in a declaratory suit; Revision No. 727 under Section 219 rejected by Additional Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda (30.03.2013), finding the sale deed (dated 05.09.1974) unclear as to the extent transferred and that long-standing entries with disputed facts cannot be corrected under Sections 33/39; Section 40A of the Act of 1901 (repealed) and Section 39, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 preserve the right to establish title by regular suit; petitioner's Section 229-B suit (Case No. T-2014086201889) withdrawn on 27.10.2017; writ petition dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21258

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002616 of 2013

¶4

Petitioner :- Savit Ram Objection Filed Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Devipatan Mandal Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.N. Srivastava,Arun Kumar Mishra,Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kr. Singh Pankaj,Ayodhya Prasad Singh,Santosh Kumar Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner says that inadvertently he could not substitute the legal heirs of private respondent No. 3 in terms of order dated 21.11.2023 and he may be permitted to substitute the legal heirs of private respondent No. 3 during course of the day.

¶7

The aforesaid has been opposed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the side opposite says that present matter challenges the order(s) passed in the proceedings related to Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") and on one pretext to another, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to adjourn the case.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the case, this Court finds that in the interest of justice, prayer sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner be allowed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to substitute the legal heirs of private respondent No. 3 during course of the day.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

By means of the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the respondent No.1Additional Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda, which was instituted under Section 219 of the Act of 1901 as also the order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2- Assistant Collector, Grade-I/Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinga, District-Shrawasti, in the case under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901.

¶13

Thus, the subject matter of the present petition relates to

¶14

correction of revenue records.

¶15

Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, make it clear that no order passed in a mutation case or in a case for correction of records shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit.

¶16

It is apparent from the material available on record that based upon sale deed registered on 29.10.1974 the petitioner filed a mutation case, which was allowed on 24.03.1975 and in compliance of order dated 24.03.1975, the area Lekhpal with respect to Gata No. 166 recorded area 0.490 acre instead 0.890 acre in the name of the petitioner.

¶17

The petitioner, after about 28 years, for correction of entry filed an application in terms of Sections 33/39 of the Act of 1901 before the respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhinga, which was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2004 and entry in the name of Chandra Pal Singh S/o Raj Mohan Singh and others recorded in the revenue records of Gata No. 166 upto area of 0.162 hectare was deleted and the name of the petitioner was recorded.

¶18

Thereafter, restoration application was moved by one Chandra Bhan Singh against the order dated 19.10.2004 which was allowed vide order dated 12.09.2006 by the respondent No.2Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinga.

¶19

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinga thereafter while passing the order dated 12.09.2006 held that the issue relates to title right with respect to the land in question, hence the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901 is not maintainable and appropriate remedy for the same is declaratory suit for establishment of title/rights.

¶20

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2006 petitioner filed the Revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901, registered as Revision No. 727 which was also rejected vide order dated 30.3.2013.

¶21

The respondent No. 1-Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda while passing the order dated 30.03.2013 recorded specific finding that the registered sale deed dated 05.09.1974 executed in favour of the petitioner with respect to Gata No. 166 is not clear as to extent of area of land of Gata No. 166 transferred to the petitioner through the registered sale deed.

¶22

The Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda while passing the order dated 30.03.2013 also took into consideration the fact that the petitioner moved application for correction of the entries in the year 2004, i.e., after about 28 years and hence, the correction of such long standing entries in the revenue records in the background of disputed question of facts could not be done in a case under Sections 33/39 of the Act of 1901.

¶23

It is also to be noted, as indicated in the counter affidavit, that during the pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner also filed suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, registered as Case No. T-2014086201889 (Savit Ram vs. Ram Kumar and others), in which the petitioner moved application dated 17.10.2017 for withdrawal of the case which was allowed vide order dated 27.10.2017 and accordingly the suit under Section 229-B instituted by the petitioner for establishing his title right over Gata No. 166 stands as withdrawn.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid which includes the statutory provision indicated above as also the facts of the case, indicated above, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

Order Date :- 11.3.2024 Vinay/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Writ petition challenges (i) order dated 30.03.2013 passed by respondent No. 1, Additional Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda, rejecting the petitioner's Revision No. 727 under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and (ii) order dated 18.09.2006 (elsewhere in the judgment recorded as 12.09.2006) passed by respondent No. 2, Assistant Collector, Grade-I/Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinga, District Shrawasti, in the case under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901, allowing the restoration application of Chandra Bhan Singh against the correction order dated 19.10.2004.¶12
Additional Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda (Revision under Section 219); Assistant Collector Grade-I/Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinga, District Shrawasti (Section 33/39 proceedings) · 30.03.2013; 18.09.2006 (recorded as 12.09.2006 at paragraphs 18-19)
Prior proceeding
Mutation case: on the basis of a sale deed (registered 29.10.1974 per paragraph 16; referred to at paragraph 21 as sale deed dated 05.09.1974), the petitioner filed a mutation case which was allowed on 24.03.1975; in compliance, the Lekhpal recorded area 0.490 acre instead of 0.890 acre of Gata No. 166 in the petitioner's name.¶16
Prior proceeding
After about 28 years, the petitioner applied under Sections 33/39 of the Act of 1901 for correction of entry before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhinga; allowed vide order dated 19.10.2004 deleting the entry of Chandra Pal Singh S/o Raj Mohan Singh and others up to 0.162 hectare in Gata No. 166 and recording the petitioner's name.¶17
Prior proceeding
Chandra Bhan Singh moved a restoration application against the order dated 19.10.2004, which was allowed vide order dated 12.09.2006 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinga.¶18
Prior proceeding
By the order dated 12.09.2006 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinga held that the issue related to title rights over the land, that proceedings under Section 33/39 were not maintainable, and that the appropriate remedy was a declaratory suit for establishment of title/rights.¶19
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2006, the petitioner filed Revision No. 727 under Section 219 of the Act of 1901, rejected vide order dated 30.3.2013.¶20
Prior proceeding
Finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in the order dated 30.03.2013: the registered sale deed (dated 05.09.1974) in favour of the petitioner regarding Gata No. 166 is not clear as to the extent of area of Gata No. 166 transferred to the petitioner.¶21
Prior proceeding
Further finding of the Additional Commissioner in the order dated 30.03.2013: the petitioner moved the correction application in 2004, i.e., after about 28 years, so correction of such long-standing entries in the background of disputed questions of fact could not be done in a case under Sections 33/39 of the Act of 1901.¶22
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the writ petition (per counter affidavit), the petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, registered as Case No. T-2014086201889 (Savit Ram vs. Ram Kumar and others).¶23
Prior proceeding
In the Section 229-B suit the petitioner moved an application dated 17.10.2017 for withdrawal, allowed vide order dated 27.10.2017; the suit for establishing his title over Gata No. 166 stands withdrawn.¶23
Prior proceeding
Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave (prayer opposed) to substitute the legal heirs of deceased private respondent No. 3 in terms of order dated 21.11.2023; the Court permitted substitution during the course of the day.¶10

Cite this judgement

Savit Ram Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Others, WRIC/1002616/2013 (ALL), decided on 11 March 2024.

The Allahabad High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes6

U.P. Land Revenue Act, 190133/39 · 40A
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (referred to as 'Act of 1901')33/39 · 219
U.P. Revenue Code, 200639
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950229-B

View all statutes

Procedural history11

Writ petition challenges (i) order dated 30.03.2013 passed by respondent No. 1, Additional Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda, rejecting the petitioner's Revision No. 727 under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and (ii) order dated 18.09.2006 (elsewhere in the judgment recorded as 12.09.2006) passed by respondent No. 2, Assistant Collector, Grade-I/Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinga, District Shrawasti, in the case under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901, allowing the restoration application of Chandra Bhan Singh against the correction order dated 19.10.2004.Additional Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda (Revision under Section 219); Assistant Collector Grade-I/Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinga, District Shrawasti (Section 33/39 proceedings) · 30.03.2013; 18.09.2006 (recorded as 12.09.2006 at paragraphs 18-19)
Mutation case: on the basis of a sale deed (registered 29.10.1974 per paragraph 16; referred to at paragraph 21 as sale deed dated 05.09.1974), the petitioner filed a mutation case which was allowed on 24.03.1975; in compliance, the Lekhpal recorded area 0.490 acre instead of 0.890 acre of Gata No. 166 in the petitioner's name.
After about 28 years, the petitioner applied under Sections 33/39 of the Act of 1901 for correction of entry before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhinga; allowed vide order dated 19.10.2004 deleting the entry of Chandra Pal Singh S/o Raj Mohan Singh and others up to 0.162 hectare in Gata No. 166 and recording the petitioner's name.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Saurabh Lavania

Parties & counsel

Savit Ram Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savit Ram Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sundari and Ors. Vs Rahul Lekhwani and Another

Smt. Sita Devi and Ors. Vs Karamat Ali and Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd.Sultanpur Thro.B.Manager Vs Jag Prasad and Ors.

Muneshwar Dutt Mishra Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another

Sumitra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Krishna Sharma @ Kishan Sharma Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Ors.