SADA NAND BAIRAGI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Present petition has been instituted for the relief of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to record the names of the petitioners in the revenue record as co-tenure holders along with respondents 4 to 7 in Gata Nos. 237 and 187 Kha situated in village Ashok Nagar, Bengali Colony, Manpur Ojha Tahsil Bilaspur district Rampur. The petitioners claim themselves to be family members of the family which was displaced and migrated to India from East Pakistan.

(2.) THE dispute in the instant petition revolves round Gata Nos. 237 and 187 Kha situated in village Ashok Nagar, Bengali Colony, Manpur Ojha Tahsil Bilaspur district Rampur, which land admeasuring five acres, had been allotted to late Mahanand Bairagi as head of the family. THE displaced family consisted of Smt. Mayanabala (mother), Sadanand Bairagi, Dwijber Bairagi, Tulka Bairagi all sons of Manohar Bairagi besides late Mahanand Bairagi. At the relevant time, Smt. Mayanabala mother was blind and the petitioners were minors. THE dispute arose after the death of Mahanand Bairagi as the names of his widow namely Shishu Bala and sons namely, Harish Chandra, Guru Chandra and Deepak were mutated to the exclusion of the petitioners who being brothers of Mahanand Bairagi and being part of displaced family, were equally entitled to be recorded as co-tenure holders of the land in question. It is alleged that the petitioners represented the matter to the Government vide their representation dated 21.5.2005 with attended papers and as a sequel thereto, the Joint Secretary, U. P. Shasan, communicated to the Collector by means of letter dated 6.11.1978, stating therein that in case names of other members were mentioned in the Main Registered Card, their names might also be included to which Government would have no objection. It is in this backdrop that the present petition has been instituted for the relief of a writ of mandamus.

(3.) COMING to the present case, it is noticeable that the learned counsel for the petitioners has not drawn attention of the Court to any provisions of the Government Grants Act nor any other provisions of any Rules to vouch for the fact that the civil rights of co-tenancy claimed by the petitioners could be gone into and adjudicated upon by any public authority in relation to a land which was allotted in the name of-one member of the family under the Government Grants Act. I have traversed upon the Government Grants Act and there appears to be no provision by which it may be indicated that any authority was empowered to adjudicate upon the civil rights of a party in such matters. Regard being had to the fact that no forum was created by the statute for declaration or adjudication of co-tenancy rights of the petitioners along with his other brothers under any statute, it is only the civil court under Section 9 of the C.P.C., which could entertain the suit. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure being germane to the point is excerpted below :