RAJAN SINGH Vs. MATRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HIMANSHU Kumar In proceedings under Section 167 of Z. A. and L. R. Act in the Court of Additional Collector, Firozabad, it was asserted that the lease of the disputed land had been granted to Matru and others. The land was entered as Banjar in the name of the Gaon Sabha before the allotment to Matru. Since Matru belonged to Scheduled caste hence, the transfer of land on 4-1-1982 in favour of Rajan Singh without permission of the Collector was illegal and hence the land in question should vest in the Gaon Sabha. Against this it was argued that Matru did not belong to Scheduled caste but was Baghel by caste and had died on 19-5- 1984. Matru Lal Dhanuk also filed an affidavit claiming that Matru Lal Baghels/o Munshi Lal Baghel belonged to different family and had executed a sale and that he Matru Lal Dhanuk had not executed any sale-deed. The learned Additional Collector concluded that the land in question was not transferable and hence, could not be sold or in any way transferred. He has further concluded that the land in question was allotted to Matru Lal Dhanuk but was illegally transferred by second Matru Lal Baghel by suffixing the name Baghel to Matru Lal and concealing the name of Dhanuk because the property had belonged to Matru Lal Baghel it would have been a different number but since the number was same and it was allotted in the records to Matru Lal Dhanuk, it is certain beyond doubt that this property was not transferable. Accordingly, the Additional Collector directed that consequent to the illegal transfer the land in question be vested in the Gaon Sabha. In revision against this order in the Court of learned Additional Commissioner, Agra, the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 31-8-1993 dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the trial Court dated 19-4-1991. Against this order his revision has been filed before the Board of Revenue on the ground that the learned Courts below had failed to solve the controversy as to whether Matru Lal Baghel and Matru Lal Dhanuk are the same persons and whether the land transferred and the land allotted is the same and land among others.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties on 29-8-2006 and perused the record. In argument the learned Counsel for the revisionist drew my attention to papers Nos. 11-A, 15-A/3 and 15-A/4, in support of the claim that Matru Lal did not belong to Scheduled caste but was Baghel. I feel that he controversy of Matru Lal Dhanuk and Matru Lal Baghel being two different persons has been sufficiently analysed by the learned Additional Collector. I agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Additional Collector that Matru Lal Dhanuk and Matru Lal Baghel are different persons, that Matru Lal Dhanuk was the beneficiary of the land allotment and that Matru Lal Baghel fraudulently sold the land concealing the word Dhanuk and that the land sold was the same as the land allotted bearing the same number. It is also not disputed that the land in question has been Banjar of Gaon Sabha land later on allotted to Matru Lal Dhanuk and others, and hence was definitely non transferable. As a consequence the sale-deed of the land in question was void and the learned trial Court had not committed any error ordering that the land be vested in the Gaon Sabha.