SATENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that late Mahboob Ali was bhumidhar with transferable right of Khasara No. 19 area 1-10-0 Bigha, Khasara No. 20 area 0-13-0 Bigha Khasara No. 21 area 0-9-0 Bigha, Khasra No. 22 area 1-15-0 Bigha situated in village-Salarpur, Pargana and Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. After death of Mahboob Ali his heirs namely Sarjeet, Jaljeet and Charni were recorded in the revenue record. After death of Surjeet his heirs Dalip, Rati Ram, Bheem and Rajpal were recorded. After death of Dalip, legal heirs Rajendra (petitioner No. 2), Virendra, Davendra and Satendra (petitioner No. 1) were recorded as his heirs and legal representative. Charni had executed sale deed regarding his share on 19/10/1983 in favour of respondent No. 4 but Sarjeet or his heirs had not executed any sale deed in favour of respondent No. 4. Collector Ghaziabad passed an order dtd. 7/4/1993 vesting the land purchased by respondent No. 4 in State in the proceeding Under Sec. -154(2)/167 (2) of U.P.Z.A and L. R. Act in Case No. 3/87-88. The petitioner's land was also shown in the order dtd. 7/4/1993 in the schedule-B although there was no sale by petitioner's or his ancestors in favour of respondent No. 4 Petitioners filed an application on 29/7/2021 under Sec. 152 of C.P.C. against the order dtd. 7/4/1993 in case No. 3/87-88. Petitioners had filed writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being writ petition No. 8402 of 2022 and same was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 20/5/2022. A copy of the order dtd. 20/5/2022 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition. District Magistrate vide impugned order dtd. 11/10/2022 dismissed the petitioners' application dtd. 29/7/2021 hence this writ petition for quashing the impugned order dtd. 11/10/2022 passed by Collector/District Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar under Sec. 152 of C.P.C. in application No. 2 of 2021 (Rajendra Singh and another v. State of U.P.) as well as for commanding the Collector Gautam Budh Nagar to rectify the order dtd. 7/4/1993 under Secs. 154 (2) and 167 (2) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and remove the share of the petitioners from the Schedule B of Khasra No. 19, area 1-10-0 Bhgha, Khasra No. 20 area 0-13-0 Bigha, Khasra No. 21 area 0-9-0 Bigha and Khasra No.22 area 1-15-0 Bigha of the revenue village Salarpur, Pargana and Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that an application filed under Secs. 154 (2) and 167 (2) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the order dtd. 7/4/1993 has been rectified on misconceived ground although in respect to other person, the application under Sec. 152 C.P.C. was allowed on merit. He further submitted that application filed by petitioners on the ground mentioned in the application was maintainable as such the dismissal of the same by the Collector is illegal. He further placed reliance upon judgment in Surajbhan Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 10 ADJ 296, in order to demonstrate that application for rectification is maintainable before the court concerned. He submitted that impugned order be set aside and application filed by the petitioners be allowed.