MUNNA LAL MITTAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K.D. Tripathi, for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, for the contesting respondents. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Commissioner dated 31.7.2002 allowing the revision of Kishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, U.P. and setting aside the order of Additional City Magistrate dated 7.9.1998 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 10.11.2003, dismissing the revision of the petitioner, arising out of proceedings under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE dispute is in respect of plots 133 (area 2 -1 -0 bigha) and 134 (area 0 -13 -15 bigha) of village and tahsil Khairagarh, district Agra. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, U.P. (respondent -3) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed an application (registered as Case No. 2 of 1999) under section 33/39 of the Act, for recording its name over the land in dispute and deleting the name of the petitioner from it. It was stated by the respondent that the land in dispute was acquired by State of U.P. on the requisition of the respondent under the previsions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under section 4 was published on 9.1.1980, invoking the provisions of section 17(4), inquiry of section 5A was dispensed with. Notification under section 6 was published on 10.1.1980, authorizing the Collector Agra to take possession over the acquired land. In pursuance thereof possession over the acquired land, including the land in dispute was taken on 9.7.1982. Notification under section 6 was challenged by some tenure holders, including the petitioner in writ petitions before High Court, which were dismissed on 17.1.1983 and Special Leave Petition filed by them were also dismissed on 6.4.1984. After taking possession over the land in dispute, it vested in State of U.P. free from all encumbrances under section 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The case was contested by the petitioner on the ground that by an order dated 27.3.1995, passed under section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, declaring the land in dispute as abadi as such Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of the land in dispute as it is no more 'land' as defined under the Act. The petitioner filed a civil suit (registered as O.S. No. 297 of 1984), which was decreed by Additional Civil Judge, Agra by judgment dated 12.12.1990 and Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1991 filed by the respondents from the aforesaid decree has been dismissed by judgment dated 9.11.1995. These judgments have become final. The petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute as such his name cannot be deleted.

(3.) THE respondent filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1775 of 1999) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 31.7.2002 held that the land in dispute was acquired by notification under section 4 dated 9.1.1980 and notification under section 6 dated 10.1.1980. The Collector took possession over the acquired land on 9.7.1982. Acquisition of the land in dispute has been upheld by Supreme Court by order dated 6.4.1984. The order passed under section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 has been challenged in revision and has not become final. Civil Court merely directed that the petitioner would not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 12.12.1991, mutated the name of the petitioner over it, on the basis of decree of Civil Court. Thereafter by the notification under section 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the consolidation in the village has been cancelled. As the land in dispute was already vested in State of U.P. as such the name of the petitioner cannot be recorded over it in the revenue records. On these findings the revision was allowed and order of Additional City Magistrate dated 30.10.1999 was set aside and the name of the petitioner was directed to be deleted from the revenue records and the name of the respondents was directed to be recorded over it. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 6 of 2002 -03) before Board of Revenue U.P., from the aforesaid order. Board of Revenue U.P. by order dated 10.11.2013 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed with the delay of 8 years 99 days