Jitendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—In these cases, the original records had been summoned. The same were produced for perusal and were duty examined on 7.11.2014. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had also examined these original record and was required to make his submission thereafter.

The matter continued in the additional cause list for several dates. It was however, taken up and was heard on 28.11.2014. After the matter had been heard for sometime, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought adjournment to further prepare his case before making his final submissions. The matter was, therefore, directed to be put up today (1.12.2014).

Today, when the case was taken up in the first round as also in the revised list, none has appeared for the petitioner.

Accordingly I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and I am proceeding to decide the matter finally.

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following among other reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing an commanding the respondent to record the name of petitioner in revenue record over gata No. 1442M situate in Village Naya Gaon, Tehsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahr, in pursuance of order dated 11.8.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer Sikandarabad Bulandshahr."

Substantially an identical relief has been claimed in the other writ petition No. 43529 of 2014, also.

It is the case of the petitioner, Jitendra that he was granted a lease of plot No. 1442M situate in village Naya Gaon, Tehsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar. It is alleged that the petitioner continued in possession and on the start of consolidation operations, filed an objection under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereupon an order was passed in his favour on 11.8.1990. Subsequently consolidation operations were cancelled by issuance of a notification under section 6(1) of the Act on 5.9.2005. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in his favour has become final and, therefore, the same was required to be incorporated in the revenue records but the same has not been done and, therefore, the necessity arose for filing the instant writ petition.

In view of the submissions made, learned Standing Counsel was initially required to obtain instructions in the matter. On the receipt of the instructions, a statement was made by the learned Standing Counsel that the alleged order passed in favour of the petitioner had been passed on a second Saturday.

It had then submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that several other orders were passed on the same date and certified copies of such orders were available with him.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner was directed to supply copies of such certified copies to the learned Standing Counsel, who was required to obtain instruction thereupon. On receipt of the instructions in this regard, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the alleged certified copies had not been issued from the record room.

Under the circumstances, the original records were directed to be produced and in pursuance of this direction the original records, namely, the khatauni 1389 to 1394 fasli, CH Form 11, Misil Band Register under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, CH Form-2-A and Goswara of 1988 of 2008 was produced for perusal by this Court and such records were duly examined.

In so far as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 43509 of 2014 (Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) is concerned, his name finds a mention in CH Form 11 over the khata No. 1218. This khata is in the name of Jitendra Singh son of Bal Krishna. As regards this entry, it has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that entries in this form are recorded in alphabetical order. The entry in the name of the petitioner has been made in a different handwriting apart from not being in alphabetical order. It is, therefore, submitted that this entry is by way of interpolation. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that this entry is proved to be interpolation also because the land revenue payable regarding such land has not been entered.

Another aspect which emerges from the examination of the original record is that the name of the petitioner, Jitendra has been entered in 1961. This entry is contained in the basic year record of 1389 to 1394 fasli. This entry by itself is proved to fraudulent because it is the specific case of the petitioner that the land in question was allotted to him by the Gaon Sabha in the year 1966.

Under such circumstances, there is absolutely no possibility of such an allotment having being entered in the revenue records five years prior to the alleged allotment.

Learned Standing Counsel has also referred to the document filed as page 10 of the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 10.10.2014. This document is supposed to be a khatauni and contains a list of the persons in whose favour allotments are alleged to have been made along with the petitioner in 1966. In this list, the name recorded at serial No. 1 is of Geeta Devi wife of Jitendra while the name of the petitioner is to be found at serial No. 12. Both these allotments are on an identical area of plot No. 1926/3. It is, therefore, clear from this document that the entries are forged because two persons cannot be allotted the same area.

The next submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that as far as the CH Form-2-A pertaining to plot No. 1926/3 is concerned, the same records the area of the plot in question as 2 bighas. It is, therefore, submitted that the theory of allotment of this plot in favour of the petitioner cannot be accepted because it is claimed by the petitioner that he has been allotted area in excess of 3 bighas of this plot. Thus an area much larger than the original area of this plot in question is alleged to have been allotted to the petitioner, which again is an impossibility.

The submission made by learned Standing Counsel, are in consonance with what was observed during examination of the original record and, therefore, the submissions have force.

In so far as the case of Ratan Lal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 43529 of 2014 is concerned, perusal of the misil band register of cases instituted under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reveals that only 236 cases under this provision were instituted. The alleged order in favour of the petitioner is said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer on 11.8.1990 in Case No. 840. It is, therefore, submitted that the alleged order in case No. 840 is a forged and fabricated document. 840 cases were not instituted in the unit in question under section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

As regards the CH Form-2-A, certified copy whereof has been filed by the petitioner, Ratan Lal, perusal of the original register of Form 2-A reveals that no such entry is found in this register.

The signature on the certified copy are stated to be some other persons and not that of the record who is alleged to have signed it.

Moreover the allotment in favour of Ratan Lal is said to be of ceiling land. The land in question is recorded in the ceiling khata as plot No. 1242. It is, therefore, submitted that such land would not have been allotted by the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, the entire theory of an allotment by the Gaon Sabha is bogus. This again falsifies the theory of allotment in favour of the petitioner.

Examination of the Goswara of 1988 of 2008 also reveals that no file of case No. 840 of 1990 was ever consigned to the record room.

Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that in so far as the plot No. 1242 is concerned, the same is still recorded as ceiling land and only five allotments have been made of land of this plot. None of these five allotments, is in favour of the petitioner.

In view of the facts noticed above, it is clear that both these writ petitions are claiming on the basis of alleged allotments which are not established nor they find any mentioned in the revenue records. The entries that do exist are found to be interpolations.

Even the orders alleged to have been passed in favour of the petitioners are shown to be forged and fabricated. Under the circumstances, the writ petitions are wholly devoid of merits having been instituted on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- each to be recovered from the respective petitioners as arrears of land revenue.