Arjan Pal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

A case was instituted under Sections 33 and 39 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1901”) by the petitioner in the court of learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Sadar, Dehradun which was registered as Original Case No.46 of 2021-22 (Case No.67 of 2016-17) “Arjan Pal Singh Vs. Smt. Anjali Kumar and others”, for the purpose of correcting an error which allegedly cropped up in the settlement and the revenue papers.

It is case of the petitioner that the land in-question was purchased by him, on which he is in possession but when respondent no.3 started creating disturbances in the peaceful possession of the property in-question saying that the same land belonged to respondent no.3., an enquiry was conducted and the Halka Lekhpal informed the petitioner that the new Gatta No. of the land is 5 min as recorded in settlement/revenue records in fasli year 1400, while in new settlement and revenue records the Gatta number is wrongly entered as 20-jha.

In order to correct this mistake, in the settlement papers/revenue records, the petitioner moved the aforesaid Correction Case No.46 of 2021-22 (Case No.67 of 2016-17) as referred above.

The aforesaid case of the petitioner is rejected by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Sadar, Dehradun vide its judgment dated 25.03.2004. A revision was filed against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2004 in the court of learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal-Mandal, Dehradun. The said revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to decide the case of the petitioner on its merit.

The trial court after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties again dismissed the correction case of the petitioner vide its judgment and order dated 06.11.2023. The petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated 06.11.2023 by filing a Revision No.10 of 2023-24, Arjan Pal Singh Vs. Smt. Anjali Kumar before the court of learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri-Garhwal, Camp Dehradun. The said Revision No.10 of 2023-24 has been dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal-Mandal, Pauri-Garhwal, Camp Dehradun vide its judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 and the order passed by trial court dated 06.11.2023 under Sections 33 and 39 of the Act of 1901 was affirmed.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Revisional Court and without challenging the order passed by learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Sadra Dehradun, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

“i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ /order quashing the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri; and/or

ii) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ /order declaring the Sale deed dated 07.11.1989 executed in favour of Respondent No.3 as a fraudulent document in terms of Section 17 of Contract Act, 1872 read with Section 53(2) and Section 55(1) (a) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and/or

iii) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ /order declaring the General Power of Attorney dated 04.04.2000 in favour of Sh S.P. Goyal as a fraudulent document in terms of Section 17 of Contanct Act, 1872 and as per Hague Apostille Convention;

iv) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order directing the respondent No.1 & 2 to make necessary Corrections in their revenue records as per the proisions of Section 32 and 38 of the UP Land Revenue Code, 2006 or any other relevant law applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case.”

So far as relief nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the said reliefs cannot be granted by a writ court in a writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the relief no.2 is akin to seeking to declare the sale deed dated 07.11.1989 executed in favour of respondent no.3 and relief no.3 for declaring the general power of attorney null and void, which relief can only be granted by a civil court, after due sifting of the evidence adduced by the parties.

So far as relief no.1 is concerned, having gone through the judgment passed by a Revisional Court, the reasoning which has been assigned by the Revisional Court for not interfering in the judgment and the order passed by trial court are quite convincing.

The Revisional Court has refused to interfere in the order of the trial court on the ground that when the property was sold and purchased by the petitioner from seller-Amit Aneja, the name of Amit Aneja was recorded in Khasra No.20 jha and, accordingly, in the sale deed dated 26.03.1999 whereby the land was purchased by the petitioner, plot no.20 jha was written and described in the sale deed.

During fasli year 1400 the earlier owner of the land in-question Amit Aneja was the one from whom the petitioner purchased the property and he had never raised any objection on recording of his land in revenue record as Khasra No.20 jha and after 7 years of this settlement the land was sold out to the petitioner which too carried Khasra No.20 jha. The Revisional Court also considered that since the petitioner purchased Khasra No.20 jha from his seller-Amit Aneja through a registered sale deed which cannot be changed by entering Khasra No.5 min in the registered sale deed and the same is beyond the scope of Sections 33 and 39 of the Act of 1901. Undoubtedly, the correction proceedings under Sections 33 and 39 of the Act of 1901 are summary in nature and now the writ petition is not maintainable. View of this Court is fortified by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Nikka Singh reported in AIR 1963 SC 1917, wherein it has been observed that against the orders, passed under summary proceedings under the Act of 1901, the writ petition would not be remedy available and the actual recourse available to the petitioner would be to resort to proceedings under Section 40-A of the Act of 1901.

This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment and order impugned dated 12.08.2024, passed by Revisional Court and the reason assigned for rejection of the revision is quite convincing and reasonable.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.