GHANSHYAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Manoj Gautam for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Collector dated 28.4.1999 by which the application under section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by Raj Kumar and others has been allowed and the map relating to plot No. 142 has been corrected and the order dated 24.2.2010 rejecting the recall application of the petitioners filed on 5.9.2009 and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 31.1.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioners against the aforesaid order.

(2.) RAJ Kumar son of Mata Deen and others filed an application for correction of map in respect of plot No. 142 of village Inguyee, pargana Rath district Hamirpur. In this application the petitioners as well as other persons were impleaded as opposite parties and summons were issued to them. In spite of service of summons none of the opposite parties have appeared before the Court. The Revenue Inspector submitted a report showing that area of plot No. 142 is less on the spot while the area of plots 137, 138 and 139 was increased slightly. Since no objection has been filed against the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 6.1.1999, the Additional Collector after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the respondents directed for correction of the map according to the report of the Revenue Inspector. It is alleged that on the basis of order dated 28.4.1999 the map was corrected and thereafter Raj Kumar and others also initiated proceeding under section 41 of the Act for demarcation of their plot and demarcation was also made. Thereafter Ghanshyam, petitioner -1, Brij Lal, respondent No. 11, and Prajapati, respondents -12 filed an application for recall of the order on 5.9.2009. In the application it has been stated that summons of the proceeding under section 28 of the Act were not served upon them. However, the applicants therein in collusion with the Pradhan of the village submitted a false report relating to the service of the summons and on the basis of it and ex parte report dated 6.1.1999 got the map corrected. In the report dated 6.1.1999 it has been illegally mentioned that the area of plot No. 137 is increasing upto 0.11 acre, 138 is increasing upto 0.06 acre and 139 is increasing upto 0.04 acre on the spot while there was no excess area in these plots as such the order dated 28.4.1999 be recalled. It may be mentioned here that although the application was filed about 10 years after passing the order dated 28.4.1999 but no application for condonation of delay has been filed along with it. Raj Kumar and others filed an objection in the aforesaid application and thereafter the application was heard by the Additional Collector, who by order dated 24.2.2010 held that notices on Ghanshyam, Prajapati and Brij Lal were personally served which bore their signatures as well as two signatures of witnesses. In the notice of Ghanshyam his son Mangal Singh and Pradhan have signed as witnesses. Notice of Brijlal was served upon his son. Thus it was held that there was personal service on the opposite parties and in spite of service they neither appeared before the Court nor filed any objection to the report of the Revenue Inspector and in such circumstances it was found that there was no reason for condoning the delay. Otherwise also no application for condonation of delay was filed. It was further held that from the report as well as the map it was clear that there was deficiency in area of plot No. 142 while covering this deficiency the area of plot Nos. 137, 138 and 139 is not reduced from their recorded area. On this finding the recall application was rejected. The petitioners filed revision from the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 31.1.2014.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners.