VIKRAM SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE FINANCE AND REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner. On the basis of a resolution of the Gaon Sabha, dated 15-8-1973, petitioner is claiming land in dispute. On the basis of this resolution name of petitioner was recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 4 2-1975 The order of the S.D.O. was challenged in revision Board of Revenue vide order dated 15-2-1977 quashed the order of the S. D. O. dated 4-2-1975 on which basis name of the petitioner was recorded in revenue papers and the petitioner Vikram Singh Junior High School Prithvipur was directed to first obtain approval of the Sub Divisional Officer regarding the resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 15-8-1973. This order of the Board of Revenue was challenged in this Court. This Court vide order dated 18-1-1992 dismissed the writ petition. However, it was left open to the petitioner to approach the consolidation authorities as the village has been brought under consolidation. The order passed by this Court dated 8-1- 1992 has been filed as Annexure VI to this writ petition. It appears that in the mean time the land in dispute was allotted in favour of respondents nos. 6 to 18 and the revenue authorities have directed that their names may be mutated in the revenue papers. The orders of the authorities granting mutation in favour of respondents nos. 15 to 18 dated 18-11-1991, 13-11-1991 and 26-12-1991 have been challenged by means of this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has submitted that by the order dated 13-10-1987 objection of the pradhan was dismissed in default and name of petitioner continued on record, and the entry in favour of petitioner has become final. Chak carved out in; his favour has also become final. Claim of the state and Gaon Sabha is also barred under section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act. It has been further submitted that the allotment proceedings in favour of respondents nos. 6 to 18 have been made behind the back of petitioner and they are void proceedings. My attention has also been invited to the fact that proceeding under section 198 for cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 13-7-1982 by the Collector.

(3.) THE undisputed facts are that Gaon Sabha by a resolution dated 15-8-1973 proposed to let out the ptots in dispute in favour of petitioner. THE Sub Divisional Officer by his order dated 4-2-1975 directed to record the name of the petitioner in revenue papers. This order of the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged in revision under section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act which was referred by the Additional Commissioner to the Board of Revenue where it was registered as Reference No; 303-304 (L.R.) of 1975 -76. THE Board of Revenue after hearing the parties found that the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Officer was passed on the application dated 9 1-1975 moved by Vikram Singh, manager of the petitioner school for grant of permission to the Land Management Committee for execution of the lease in favour of petitioner in respect of the land in dispute in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution of the Gaon Sabha. However, the Sub Divisional Officer illegally treated the application as an application for mutation and directed for recording of the name of petitioner in revenue papers. It was also noticed that two of the plots were already allotted in favour of hospital. However, no notice was issued to the hospital nor any proclamation was issued for mutating the name of petitioner. THE Board of Revenue took the view that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 4-2-1975 is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal in every respect and cannot be maintained. With these findings the revision was allowed and the order dated 4-2-1975 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside and the petitioner was directed to obtain the approval of the Sub- Divisional Officer regarding the proposal of the Land Management Committee dated 15-8-1973. It will be relevant to quote the operative part of the order dated 15-2-1977 passed by the Board of Revenue :