Sheo Raj Singh vs Addl. Commissioner and Others

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing counsel for the Respondents.

Petitioner through order dated 16.5.1997 got his name mutated in the revenue record over khasra plot No. 492 area 3 bigha pukhta. His case was that on 4.5.1985 some patta had been given to him by Land Management Committee Gram Pradhan filed an application against the said order on 2.2.1998 asserting that some forged, fake allotment had been shown and on the basis of the same mutation had been obtained. Tehsildar gave report that no allotment had been made. Accordingly, through order dated 21.3.1998 name of the Petitioner was expunged and the land was directed to be re-entered as banjar (belonging to the Gaon sabha). Petitioner filed an application on 20.4.1998 for setting aside the order dated 21.3.1998. Through order dated 9.11.1998 Additional District Magistrate, Khurja District Bulandshahar held that there was absolutely no error in the order dated 21.3.1998. Against the said orders dated 21.3.1998 and 9.11.1998 Petitioner filed revisions No. 19 and 20 both of 1998. Additional Commissioner, Meerut division Meerut held that there was no allotment in favour of the Petitioner hence he could not be granted any benefit. However, Additional Commissioner held that impugned orders were temporary in nature. Accordingly, I passed an order on 13.5.2011 directing the parties to ascertain the position. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner after consulting his client stated that the orders challenged before the revisional court were final orders.

In the typed copy of patta dated 4.5.1985 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) approval of Sub Divisional Officer is not there which was utmost essential. Absolutely no explanation has been given as to why for twelve years name of the Petitioner was not mutated in the revenue record and no effort in that direction was made by the Petitioner. The fantastic plea of illiteracy taken by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is utterly meaningless. Illiteracy cannot be converted into a weapon to do all sort of fraud. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record photostat copy of the patta of 4.5.1985 and has stated that at the back of the patta approval is there. At the back of the patta there is some rubber stamp and the year mentioned at the bottom is 1992.

Accordingly, it is quite clear that Petitioner played a fraud to usurp the Gaon sabha property.

Writ petition is therefore dismissed and it is directed that Petitioner shall forthwith be dis-possessed and damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per year from 1998 till date shall be recovered from the Petitioner like arrears of land revenue.

Office is directed to supply a copy of this judgment to Shri S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel free of cost within three days for immediate communication to District Magistrate and the Sub Divisional Officer concerned.