MOHD ISHAQUE Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While being seized of the controversy involved in this petition, attention of the Court was drawn to a disquieting feature that petitioners have abused the process of the Court by filing a second petition for the selfsame reliefs the first one having met the fate of dismissal vide order dated 24.8.2005 passed in writ petition No. 55430 of 2005. Consequently, a detailed order was passed on 18.10.2005, issuing notice to the petitioners to appear in person on 9.12.2005 to show cause why proceeding be not launched against them for making false averments. On 27.2.2006, again a detailed order was passed directing Sub Divisional officer Tahsil Sadar Allahabad to produce alongwith the record the enquiry report fixing responsibility for non-compliance with the order of the Court dated 31.1.2006 communicated through letter dated 6.2.2006 by which Standing counsel was required to produce notification with a view to ascertain whether U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was applicable to the land in dispute or not. On 27.3.2005, the judgment was reserved in the case and 28.4.2006 was fixed.

(2.) The dispute in the instant matter revolves round plot No. 532 admeasuring 2 Bigha and 5 Biswas situated in village Kareli Tahsil Sadar District Allahabad. It would appear that in the earlier writ petition, which was dismissed on 24.8.2005, the petitioners had sought the relief of a writ of mandamus directing opposite party No. 2 to decide proceeding under Section 33 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act pending before S.D.O. Tahsil sadar District Allahabad. It would further appear that the petitioner had filed an application to correct entry in Khatauni by expunging the name of one Jeevan son of Kallu and in his place to record the name of the petitioner.

(3.) In the perspective that the petitioners had filed a second petition for the self-same relief the first one having been dismissed, record of the earlier petition was requisitioned. Sri Ahmad Hassan learned Counsel representing the petitioners stated across the bar that he had not been clued in about filing of the earlier writ petition. As stated supra, a notice having been issued, the petitioners appeared and filed their reply to the show cause notice together with the basis of their title alongwith a supplementary affidavit. It would further appear that the petitioners placed credence on some order in their favour incorporated in the Khatauni as well as the basis of the title i.e. mortgage deed dated 10.6.1975 executed by aforesaid Jeevan son of Kallu. On a careful scrutiny of materials on record, this Court directed Sub Divisional officer Tahsil Sadar to produce relevant record and enquiry report as directed by the Court. A counter affidavit sworn in by Sri Sameer Verma, Sub divisional Officer Tahsil Sadar District Allahabad came to be filed depicting that the village Kareli consisted of two types of property i.e. the land in Zamindari area and the land in non-zamindari area and that now Zamindari has been abolished but in certain area the properties are still being governed by the law relating to non-Zamindari Abolition Area and that the land in dispute fell in non-Zamindari Abolition Area. The further averments made in the counter affidavit are that the land has already vested in the State by order of the Prescribed Authority Ceiling dated 9.2.1979. It would transpire from a scrutiny of counter affidavit that numerous other documents were also filed alongwith counter affidavit to prop up the case that no orders were ever passed in favour of petitioners by any competent, authority and entry made in Khatauni was nothing but an instance of interpolation. Sri Sameer Verma, S.D.O. also produced enquiry report and it was conveyed to the Court that one O.P. Yadav, Naib Tahsildar has been held blameworthy in the matter and as a consequence, he has been visited with the punishment of warning.