AIGU Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE EXECUTIVE GYANPUR VARANASL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. This writ peti tion has been pending at the High Court for more than 14 years. This in itself reflects badly on a public justice system. The Court is informed by the Bench Secretary that there is an adjournment slip of learned counsel for the petitioner. For mally, this Court would have adjourned this matter, but it is too embarrassing for the Court to adjourn a case which is pend ing for the last 14 years. In the circumstan ces, the Court has carefully perused the record and taken the assistance of learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Krishna Prasad, Advocate, and is rendering its opinion on the state of the record.

(2.) AT the time when this writ petition was filed, the prayer for an ad interim order had been rejected by a Division Bench on 10 September 1982. The case, apparently, appears to have been built up by sup plementary affidavits. On the first oc casion when the matter was considered for admission, the Division Bench, on 16 August 1982, recorded. "learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks time for filing supplementary affidavit indicating precisely the points which had been argued by him before respondent No. 1" Sd/- Hon'ble H. N. Seth, J. Sd/- Hon'ble R. R. Rastogi, J.

(3.) THE proceedings, in context, ap parently, were in reference to issues raised after the Maharaja of Benaras had given and donated his land to the Bhoodan mcvement. THEse lands became the sub ject- matter of a grant under the Act, aforesaid. In the writ petition it is accepted that the sir land of Sri Vibhuti Narain Singh, the Raja of Banaras, became the subject-matter of a donation. THE petitioners further contend that these lands were recorded in the name of Rudra Pratap Singh, Kamla Pratap Singh and others as "asamiyan sir". Hereinafter they submit that different plots in dispute were, however, in possession of the petitioners since the time of their ancestors as "dar Sikmi". To fortify this contention they place the record of Khatauni 1385 Fasali. THEy also mention that a certified copy of the Khatauni of 1371 Fasali, which was part of the record of the proceedings is also being placed. THEy now submit that they have heard that Sri Vibhuti Narain Singh had donated certain lands, sir in category, in Village Beerampur to the Bhoodan Yagna in 1952. THEir precise submission in the writ petition is that "that it is said that Sri Vibhuti Narain Singh, the Maharaja of Benaras donated 110 bighas of his sir land situate in village Beerampur, Taluka Kondh, Parganabiiadohi district Varanasi to 'bhoodan Yagna Samiti" in 1952. How ever, no declaration in writing by Sri Vib huti Narain Singh, the Raja of Beneras as required by Section 8 of the Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 read with Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act could ever see the the light of the day. " THEy refer to a proceeding between Bhoodan Yagna Com mittee v. Vibhuti Narain Singh. In para graph 4, they contend, "that to the best of the petitioners knowledge, Sri Vibhuti Narain Singh did not make any "bhoodan" declaration in respect of the land in dis pute in the prescribed form given in Ap pendix I to the Rules framed under the Act nor any such declaration has been filed with the Tahsildar Gyanpur". THEy further contend in this paragraph. "the Tahsildar never published any such declaration in respect of theland in dispute as required by Section 9 of the Act. THE land in dispute, therefore, never vested in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee.