Ranjeet Singh and Others vs Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. N.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned Counsel for private respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.5.2004 passed by Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, order dated 25.1.2000 passed by respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner Administration and order dated 30.12.1995 passed by Assistant Collector First Class Chamoli (Annexure Nos. 6, 5 and 4 to the writ petition).

Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that plaintiff/respondent Nos. 4 to 9 filed a suit u/s 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) for eviction of Late Sri Kundan Singh, the predecessor of the petitioners. The suit was contested by Late Sri Kundan Singh. Learned Assistant Collector framed relevant issues in the case. Thereafter both the parties led evidence. Learned Trial Court gave issue-wise finding, and on the basis of documentary evidence, has held that the plaintiff was in possession. The Trial Court did not find continuous adverse possession of defendant Late Sri Kundan Singh, his name was not recorded in class 9, and ultimately by judgment and order dated 30.12.1995, the Trial Court decreed the suit Aggrieved by the order of Trial Court, first appeal was preferred. Learned Appellate Court after reappraisal of evidence, by a detailed order dated 25.1.2000, dismissed the appeal. Further aggrieved, second appeal was preferred before the learned Board of Revenue, which was remitted to Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner u/s 91 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. During the pendency of second appeal, defendant Kundan Singh died and was subsequently substituted by his legal representatives. Vide order dated 21.5.2004, learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner dismissed the second appeal and held that if the right of petitioners have been matured they ought to have filed a suit u/s 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration of their rights and that the suit has rightly been decreed by the Assistant Collector. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

Counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 9 wherein at para-2(b) it has been stated that the plaintiffs/respondents are the recorded Bhumidhar of plot No. 4296 measuring 4 Nalis and 10 Muthis of Khata Khatauni No. 62 of village Siyari Bangali. On 18.5.1982 the father of the petitioners forcibly harvested the crop sown by the plaintiffs/respondents over the land in dispute and when the plaintiffs/respondents objected on his illegal action he threatened the plaintiffs/respondents. On 19.5.1982 a first information report was lodged by the plaintiffs/respondents against the petitioners/defendants with Patwari Circle Ghat, Tehsil and District Chamoli and on 28.5.1982 an application u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was presented before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chamoli. The learned Magistrate vide its order dated 4.4.1986 attached the land in dispute and handed over the said land in the Superdagi of Gram Pradhan Gram Sabha Siyari Bangali. It was further directed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chamoli that the parties may file a suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction to recover the possession. With these averments the revenue suit was filed for ejectment of the petitioners/defendant from the land in dispute.

Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners wherein averments made in the writ petition are reiterated.

This fact is not disputed that predecessor of petitioners was never recorded as Bhumidhar. He had not filed any suit for declaration of his rights that he has perfected his rights by way of adverse possession therefore the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Courts did not find favour to the petitioner and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs since the respondents/plaintiffs were recorded tenure holders. It was burden upon the defendants to prove continuous entry and hostile possession. The contention of possession was declined by the Trial Court on the basis that name of Late Sri Kundan Singh was not recorded in the settlement of 1956.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that predecessor of petitioners was recorded as a Shirtan by order of Assistant Record Officer dated 22.12.1952 and this order has not been assailed by the plaintiffs before any Court.

In reply thereto, Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that for the first time this order was filed at the second appellate stage. The Second Appellate Court has rejected this document on the ground that certified copy of the order has not been filed, only carbon copy was filed and that too does not reflected for which land the order was passed.

I have perused the impugned orders. In the case at hand, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the Courts below that the petitioners are not in possession over the land in dispute. The findings are recorded on appraisal of evidence led by the parties. In writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit like a Court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence, so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of misreading of evidence by the Courts concerned. The findings have been recorded by the Courts below on appraisal of evidence led by the parties. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by Courts below. In the light of aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.