DEV SHARMA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners, Dev Sharma and Gaurav, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 10th March, 2003 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) Gautambudh Nagar, in case No. 33 of 2001, whereby the learned Additional Collector has come to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated under Sub-section 4 of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 are not barred by time, as in view of the submissions so raised, the action having been taken suo motu under the said Act are valid and that notices should be issued calling upon the petitioners and such other persons to examine as to whether the allotment of land in favour of the petitioners in 1954 was genuine and in accordance with law or not. Assailing the said order the petitioners approached the Board of Revenue by filing a revision which was also dismissed affirming the order of the Additional Collector. Hence, this petition.

(2.) THE litigation has a chequered history and therefore a brief background would be necessary to understand the controversy.

(3.) IT appears that after the disposal of the said writ petition, on 27th January, 1995, an endorsement came to be made in the revenue record of rights (Khatauni) directing expunging of the names of the petitioners and the other tenure holders who were recorded over the said land in proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. This action of the revenue authorities came to be challenged by the petitioners in writ petition No. 3751 of 1995. The said writ petition was entertained and after exchange of affidavits and summoning of the records the petition was allowed holding that the basis for expunging the entries did not fail within the scope of correction and therefore the name of the petitioners could not be expunged summarily. IT was also observed that if the allotment in favour of the petitioners was sought to be annulled then the same could have been done only under the provisions of Section 198 and not by an indirect method through summary proceedings. IT was further held that the action of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was mala fide and was contrary to the settled law in relation to correction of entries as such the petition was allowed. The operative part which is relevant for the present controversy apart from the other facts discussed therein is quoted herein below: