RAMVEER Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Saurabh Basu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek Kumar Chaubey and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plot Nos. 353/2, 354, 355/2, 398/2, 399/2, 400/2 situated in village Sadullapur @ Modelpur, Tehsil-Jewar, District Gautambudhpur were recorded in the name of petitioners' father Shiv Dayal @ Shiv Lal in 1347 Fasli according to petitioners but according to State as well as private respondent No. 7 it was recorded in the name of Zamindar Chaudhary Rajendra Singh and the same was given on lease to father of petitioner No. 1 Shiv Dayal @ Shiv Lal had two sons Ramveer and Shahveer. Petitioner No. 2 purchased the share of Shahveer accordingly petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are contesting the proceedings. Consolidation proceeding intervened in the village by way of notification issued under Sec. 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953 on 24/2/1966 and village was denotified by way of notification issued under Sec. 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 23/12/1967. In proceeding under Sec. -122-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act,1950 an order for ejectment and damages was passed on 31/1/1983 against petitioner No. 1 in respect to plot No. 215 area 15 Biswa which was affirmed in appeal. Land acquisition proceedings was initiated vide notification dtd. 19/3/1947 for construction of Jewar Khurja Highway but in respect to petitioner's plot, the requisition proceeding as provided under Secs. 35 and 36 of Land Acquisition Act took place and after completion of construction of Jewar-Khurja Highway, land of different tenure holders were returned back to the respective tenure holders accordingly the name of respective tenure holders were recorded but in certain cases the names were not recorded hence on the basis of the report of the authorities, District Magistrate vide order dtd. 26/5/1988 directed to record the name of tenure holders in respect to plot No. 241 (New No. 86M) area 0/0/10., plot No-246 (New No-82M), 250 (New No-82M), plor No. 305 (New No. 186M) area 0-15-0, plot No. 314 ( New No. 186 M) area 0-5-0, Plot No-399 (New No- 215M) area 0-15-0 and Plot No- 312 (New No-186M) area 0-8-0 Total area 2/15/10. Respondent No. 7 claims to be owner of plot Nos. 221 and 222. A Civil Suit No. 6 of 2016 for decree of Injunction impleading petitioners as defendants in respect to her plot No. 221 is pending before Civil Court. Respondent No. 7 filed an application under Sec. 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 to correct the entry of plot No. 215 by recording the same as road in the revenue record. The aforementioned application filed by respondent No. 7 was registered as Case No. 4/2016, under Sec. 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. A report dtd. 18/1/2016 was submitted in the aforementioned proceeding. Respondent No. 5, Sub-Divisional Magistrate heard the aforementioned proceeding under Sec. 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act vide order dtd. 8/7/2016 rejected the application under Sec. 33/39 filed by respondent No. 7 on the ground that plot in dispute is Bhumidhari plot of the tenure holder as such the entry cannot be expunged in the summary proceeding rather parties should avail remedy before regular court. Against the order dtd. 8/7/2016, respondent No. 7 filed revision under Sec. 219 of the UP. Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner. The aforementioned revision was registered as revision No. 57 of 2015-16 and the same was heard by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. Respondent No. 3/Additional Commissioner vide order dtd. 23/9/2016 allowed the revision, set aside the order dtd. 8/7/2016 and expunged the entry in respect to plot No. 215. Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 23/9/2016 before the Board of Revenue under Sec. 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which was registered as revision No. 2356/2016. Respondent No. 2/ Board of Revenue vide judgment dtd. 10/1/2020 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the orders dtd. 10/1/2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 and 23/9/2016 passed by respondent No. 3.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 17/3/2020 entertained the matter and granted interim protection for maintaining status quo in respect to the property in dispute.