RITESH MOTWANI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PARDESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.06.2017 passed by the S.D.M. concerned in proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short 'Act, 1901') at the behest of the petitioners herein for correction of records in respect of Gata No. 6 and 23, as also the revisional order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad under Sec. 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

(3.) The facts material to the case are that the petitioners proposed to purchase the land in question from opposite party No. 4 on the basis of entries in the revenue records in respect of the said land in Khatauni pertaining to 1396 Fasli-1401 Fasli in his favour. However, in this process they detected that in the Khatauni for the period 1402 Fasli-1407 Fasli pertaining to the same land, the name of opposite party no. 5 was recorded, therefore, after collecting relevant information they, along-with the opposite party no. 4, filed an application dated 29.06.2015 under Sec. 33/39 of the Act, 1901 for correction of the said records alleging the entries in favour of opposite party no. 5 to be fake and fraudulent and praying that the name of opposite party no. 4 herein (applicant no. 3 before the S.D.M.) Jagdish Pal Maurya be recorded in place of opposite party no. 5 i.e. Prem Chandra. In the interregnum, the opposite party no. 4 entered into an agreement to sell the land in question with the petitioners and got it registered on 06.04.2015. The said agreement specifically mentions that possession was not being handed over to the petitioners herein. On enquiry the S.D.M. found the entry in favour of opposite party no. 4 and the entry in favour of opposite party no. 5, both to be of doubtful veracity. Therefore, he did not accept the claim of the applicants for entering the name of opposite party no. 4 in the revenue records, and their application was rejected with consequential direction to the Tehsildar to examine the points mentioned in his order and also the records and submit a report to his Court for correction of records.