STATE Vs. URAJ NISAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the judgment dated 13.03.1997, passed by the Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital and order dated 20.12.2002, passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (Circuit Court), Nainital, Uttarakhand.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed one Suit under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, against the petitioners, impleading Gram Sabha respondent No. 7 as party respondent for seeking declaration that plaintiffs (respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and 4, herein) be declared as bhumidhar of land Khatauni Khata No. 355, measuring 55, 11/16 nali, of Village Patti Talli Riyuni, Tehsil Ranikhet, District Almora, stating therein that earlier Shri Nishar Mohammad Khan, father of the respondents was sole bhumidhar in possession of the land, in question; name and possession of the father of the respondents Shri Nishar Mohammad Khan remained entered in the revenue record as bhumidhar in possession, however, in the year 1958, father of the respondents, Shri Nishar Mohammad Khan alongwith his brother Nazar Mohammad Khan executed one sale deed in favour of the State of Uttar Pradesh, pertaining to other land of which property, in question, was not a part. However, due to oversight mistake name of the State Government was mutated in the revenue record over the property, in question, as well, besides the property sold by the father and uncle of the respondents; having acquired the knowledge that name of the State Government was wrongly mutated over the property, in question, plaintiffs moved application for correction of the record under Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, before the Assistant Collector, which was registered as Case No. 133/68 -69; application for correction of the record was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Pali, vide judgment and order dated 25.10.1971; consequently, names of the plaintiffs were restored in the revenue record, after deleting the name of the State Government, over the property in question. Name and possession of the plaintiffs remained mutated/entered in the revenue record till 1378 Fasli; however, thereafter, all of a sudden, again name and possession of the plaintiffs was deleted from the revenue record without there being any order of the Competent Authority and name of the State Government was wrongly restored in the revenue record; again, plaintiffs moved application for the correction of the record under Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, in the year 1990, however, the same was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 15.07.1991, saying that in the proceedings of correction of record long standing entries cannot be deleted, therefore, if plaintiff, if so advised, may file regular suit for declaration in the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Pali, Ranikhet. Consequently, plaintiffs had filed suit and the suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 16.10.1996; feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs filed statutory appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, being Appeal No. 6 of 1996 -97. Appeal so filed by the plaintiffs was allowed vide judgment dated 13.03.1997 and plaintiffs were declared bhumidhar of the property, in question; feeling aggrieved, State Government has preferred Second Appeal No. 98 of 1996 -97 in the Court of Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (Circuit Court) Nainital, Uttaranchal, which too came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2002; feeling aggrieved, State Government has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State/petitioners and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents no. 1 to 4 and have carefully perused the record.