MAN PAL SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.P. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The first set of orders challenged through these writ petitions are contained in Annexures 4 and 5 passed by Deputy Collector, Sikandrarao District Aligarh in Patrank: 759/S.T.-2004 Babu, Lal v. State dated 15.6.2004 and 20.6.2004. In the first order it was stated that on the basis of report of Tehsildar entries of allotment were being cancelled with immediate effect and revenue records must be corrected accordingly. Through the second order dated 20.6.2004 it was held that as per report of Tehsildar, Sikandra Rao dated 12.6.2004 allotment and resolution dated 24.11.1992 and the approval dated 30.3.1993 were not available in the office of Tehsildar hence entries were forged, and fictitious. Against the said order two revisions being Revisions No. 11 and 12 both of 2003-04 Manpal Singh and others v. Babu Lal and others, were filed which were dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Agara Division, Agra on 4.7.2006 hence these writ petitions. The Deputy Collector without even bothering that he was cancelling allotment of how many persons passed the orders dated 15.6.2004 and 20.6.2004. In-fact 67 persons (allottees) were affected by the said order. 24 are petitioners in the first writ petition and 5 are petitioners in the second writ petition. What the Sub-Divisional Officer has done is heartless massacre of justice. What concern Babu Lal had got with the matter has not been explained. Why the Deputy Collector considered himself subordinate to the Tehsildar and simply approved his report has also not been explained. Why action was not taken for 14 years has also not been explained. Why the records were not available in the office has not been explained. It has also not been explained as to whether record of any allotment is available in the office or not. Why the allottees shall suffer for absence of record in the office has also not been explained. The most fatal thing is that the S.D.O. did not consider it necessary to hear even one allottee. If S.D.O. is only to approve the report of the Tehsildar then the positions must be exchanged. S.D.O. must be made Tehsildar and Tehsildar S.D.O.

(2.) In fact not much fault can be found with the S.D.O. S.D.O. is an Executive Officer and Executive Officers do not know ABCD of judicial proceedings. Asking S.D.Os./Deputy Collectors to do judicial/quasi judicial work is like asking an Engineer to cure an ailment or asking a Doctor to supervise the construction of a bridge.

(3.) The Court has hardly seen any order of any S.D.O. or Collector in judicial or quasi-judicial matter which may be better than the worst decision of a Munsif. The constitutional mandate of separation of executive and judicial powers has not yet fully been implemented. The Government must give serious thought to it. The greatest injustice with farmers of Uttar Pradesh is that they are not being provided officers having knowledge of law and judicial training to decide their disputes