RAVI KANT Vs. CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER, SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order 28.1.1989 contained in Annexure No. 5 of the writ petition.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record. As per petitioners' case they were granted land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Biswa of Plot No. 927 situated in village Sarayan, pargana Barasua, Tehsil and district Sultanpur by means of a document of gift dated 5.12.1983 issued by District Bhudan Committee, Sultanpur. Petitioners came into possession of the land. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 filed objection under section 15-A of the U.P. Bhudan, Yozana Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Copy of their objections is annexed to the writ petition is Annexure No. 2. From perusal of these objections, it reveals that they have challenged the alleged Gift in favour of the petitioners that petitioners' Father and Grand-father are rich persons. Violating the provisions of the Act alleged Gift was made in their favour by the Committee. They were not landless agriculture. No publication of this Gift was made. No list landless persons was prepared. Objectors are in possession of the land and trees planted in it exist from the time of their fore-fathers. This does not belong to Bhudan Samiti and Samiti never came in its possession. Petitioners never remained in possession of the property. Consolidation proceedings commenced in the area where the land situates. Petitioners raised objection before the Consolidation Officer, the same was decided by respondent No. 1 and he has cancelled the alleged Gift in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by this order, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The main objection raised on behalf of the respondents was that when the alleged Gift was made in favour of the petitioners by the Committee, both the petitioners were minor and in favour of minor no such Transfer can be made under the provisions of law. Another objection was that land was not of such nature that agriculture was possible there. It was surrounded by the trees and the alleged Gift Deed is a void deed. Giving detailed reasons, respondent No. 1 after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and considering the evidence made available by them and after going through the record passed the impugned.