Satya Narain Giri vs Board of Revenue

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—List has been revised. Heard Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed against the order of S.D.O. dated 6.1.1982, rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall of the order dated 16.7.1979, the order dated 23.11.1982 passed by Collector, Deoria, dismissing the reference of the petitioner and the order of Board of Revenue dated 20.10.2011 dismissing the revision of the petitioner.

The dispute between the parties is in respect of plot No. 152 (area 0.12 acre) of village Garulpar, tappa Gaorai, pargana Salempur, district Deoria. Initially, Satya Narain Singh (respondent-5) filed an application u/s 39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, for recording his father''s name as Jaggi Singh in place of Shiv Lal over the land in dispute. The S.D.O. by order dated 24.9.1976 allowed the application and directed for correcting the parentage of Satya Narain Singh as Jaggi Singh in the record. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner and his appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the S.D.O. to decide the application afresh, after hearing the parties. However, in the meantime, on the basis of the earlier order, the record has been corrected and the parentage of Satya Narain Singh has been changed as Jaggi Singh in place of Shiv Lal.

After remand, the S.D.O. by Order dated 21.5.1979, rejected the application of respondent-5. As in the meantime, on the basis of the order of S.D.O. dated 24.9.1976, the correction had already been made in the record, the petitioner filed an application for issuing parwana and restoring the previous position in the revenue record.

The application of the petitioner has been treated as fresh application for correction in the record and was rejected by order dated 16.7.1979 for not taking steps for service on the opposite party. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order. The S.D.O. by order dated 6.1.1982 rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application before the Collector for submitting a reference for allowing the revision.

However, the Collector has dismissed the application of the petitioner by order dated 23.11.1982. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which has also been dismissed by the order dated 20.10.2011. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner was only for restoring the entry as it was before passing of the order of S.D.O. dated 24.9.1976. As the order dated 24.9.1976 has already been set aside, as such, by issuing parwana, the entry was liable to be corrected, but it was illegally treated by the S.D.O. as a fresh application for correction of the record and accordingly, notices have been issued, although no notice was required to be issued. By issuing parwana alone, the record could have been corrected. As the matter had already been decided, under some confusion, the process fee could have been deposited by the Counsel for the petitioner, as such, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 16.7.1979 for want of prosecution. The recall application as well as reference and revision, have been illegally dismissed.

I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.

Admittedly, the change in the record has been done on the basis of the order of S.D.O. dated 24.9.1976 and on the order being set aside by the Appellate Court, the entry in the revenue record was liable to be restored. But, instead of restoring the entry, the application filed by the petitioner has been wrongly rejected. Both the parties alleged that the land in dispute is abadi on the spot, therefore, the revenue authorities have not jurisdiction to make any correction in the record. The fact remains that the correction in the record has been made by the Revenue Court on the basis of the order dated 24.9.1976, therefore, if any illegal mutation has been incorporated by the order of any Naib Tahsildar, then he is competent to undo his illegal act by exercising inherent power, as is well known from the latin maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit", meaning, an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. On the order of S.D.O. dated 24.9.1976 being set aside by the Appellate Court, consequential action ought to have been taken. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The S.D.O. is directed to restore the position in the revenue record as it was before passing of the order dated 24.9.1976, within a period of one month from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him.