Begraj vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 24.10.2009 passed by the respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Magistrate in proceedings u/s 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the order dated 5.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner (Administration) Meerut Division, Meerut in revision arising thereto.

It appears that in revenue records Khasra No.115/7 area 0.215 hectare and Khasra No.116/4 area 0.291 hectare was recorded in the name of petitioner''s father Bhoop Singh. Respondent No.4 applied for correction and for recording his name also. The said application has been allowed.

Aggrieved this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

The submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that the respondent No.4 is not the resident of the village and as such on the basis of allotment made in his favour his name is not liable to be recorded.

The land in dispute was allotted jointly to the petitioner''s father Bhoop Singh and respondent No.4 vide resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 22.8.78 and the said resolution was approved on 31.7.79. However, in making entries in the revenue records only the name of petitioner''s father was recorded and that of respondent No.4 was omitted. The said omission has been rectified by the present correction. It is not the case of the petitioner that the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 has been cancelled on any ground much less that he is not the resident of the village.

Counsel for the petitioner was given opportunity to establish that the name of respondent No.4 is not liable to be recorded but he fairly conceded the allotment made in his favour. In view of above, when the land stands allotted to him also his name is also liable to be entered in the revenue record. Any opportunity even if given would not have changed the above result.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the light of the resolution of the Gaon Sabha, if the name of respondent No.4 has also been directed to be recorded, I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed, even an opportunity to the petitioner would not have altered the result and as such on the mere technicality that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity, I am not inclined to intervene in the matter.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.