DISTRICT CO Vs. HARIHAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is reference under Sec. 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, dated 11-11-1974. His recommendation is that the order of the S.D.O./C.O. Tahsil Kanpur, correcting record of rights, be set aside as without jurisdiction and that proceedings on the application of Harihar Singh, O.P. be dropped.

(2.) The impugned order of the S.D.O/C. O. Kanpur, started on the application of Harihar Singh Mohan Singh, O.Ps., that the name of the District Co-operative Federation was wrongly recorded over the land in question ; that, the entry should be expunged, that the names of the applicants should be recorded as sirdars and future that the compensation rolls prepared be also cancelled. This application purports to have been moved under sections 29 and 35 of the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The S.D.O., who is also the Compensation Officer seems to have treated this subsequently as one for correction of papers under sections 33 and 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. A notice was issued to the District Co-operative Federation, the present revisionist, to show why the records be not corrected under sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act by removing its name. The D.C.F. contested the proceedings and thereafter obtaining a report from the Tahsildar, the S.D.O. passed the impugned order, signing himself as C.O./D.O., Kanpur. A revision was filed before the Addl. Commissioner. The Addl. Commissioner in his referred order has dealt with the plea that the original order was passed by the S.D.O. in his capacity as the Compensation Officer acting under sections 29 and 35 of the U.P. Urban Areas Z.A. & L.R., Act but this plea did not find favour with him. He has observed that an application would not become an application under a particular Sec. by merely addressing as such, but by its contents and the prayer made therein. He has held that the real prayer was for the correction of the record of rights and the request for cancelling the compensation rolls was only incidental. He has observed that by its order dated 8-6-1970 the trial court also treated the application as one under sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act he has further held that in proceedings under sections 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act only those errors can be corrected which have crept in by inadvertence of the staff or by manipulation but the present case did not fall in any of these categories. Hence, his recommendation.

(3.) In arguments before me, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. confined himself to only one aspect, namely, that the initial order being one under sections 29 and 35 of the U.P. Urban Areas Z.A.L.R. Act was appealable only to the District Judge. Consequently, the revision before the Addl. Commissioner and its subsequent reference to the Board were incompetent. Learned counsel for the D.C.F. on the other hand endorsed the stand and the arguments of the learned Addl. Commissioner and argued that the order was really one under the U.P. Land Revenue Act being without jurisdiction should be set aside.