ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA Vs. S.D.M. MOHAN LAL GANJ
LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-5
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 01,2013

ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA Appellant
VERSUS
S.D.M. Mohan Lal Ganj Respondents




JUDGEMENT

SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J. - (1.)HEARD Sri D.C.Mukharji, learned counsel for the petitioner who filed his 'Vakalatnama' along with rejoinder affidavit on 19.9.2013 and Sri Y.M.S. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents who supplied duplicate copy of the counter affidavit.
(2.)PETITIONERS who are cousins asserted that they were in possession over an area of more than 25 bighas of Gaon Sabha land and had thereby become Sirdar of the same. The SDO through order dated 27.12.1969 directed entry of their names in the revenue record and on the basis of the said order entry was made in Khatauni 1381 83 Fasli. Thereafter consolidation started in the area in question through notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act dated 2.7.1980. During consolidation no objection was filed by the Gaon Sabha and the entries continued in CH Form No.45.
The names of the petitioners were scored off from the revenue record through order dated 30.7.1991 passed by SDO, Mohan Lal Ganj in Case No.6 of 1990 91 Gram Samaj vs. Ajai Kumar and others under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. Copy of the said order is Annexure 7 to the writ petition and that has been challenged through this writ petition.

(3.)IT is mentioned in the said order that according to the report of the Lekhpal in the Khatauni of 1395 1400 Fasli (1987 88 to 1992 93 AD) over the land of Khata No.165 consisting of several plots total area 25 bighas 13 biswa 10 biswansi names of petitioners were wrongly recorded on the basis of illegal patta and they were relations of the previous Pradhan. It is also mentioned that notices were sent to petitioners but they did not appear and they also did not file any objection. It is further mentioned that on perusal of the record it transpired that on the basis of some order passed in Case No.285 dated 27.12.1969 names of petitioners were directed to be entered in the revenue record. It was also mentioned that the order was passed by Sri A.Chandi the then SDO who had passed several such orders and consequently his services were terminated. It was also mentioned that no Patta could be granted of more than 6 Bighas and that one petitioner was minor at that time and the other in government service.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.