RAM PRAKASH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manas Bhargava and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 to 14.

(2.) The petitioner claims that Plot Nos. 620, 621 situated in village Hindupur, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar is his ancestral property and the name of the father of the petitioner Kamta Prasad was recorded in the rights of records (khatauni), and without intimation to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 5 to 14 got their name entered into the rights of records on 20.6.1975. When the petitioner came to know about it, he challenged the same by filing an application under Section 34/35 of the Land Revenue Act, before the respondent no. 3 Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar for correction in the rights of the records. The said application was registered as Case No. 1224/13-14 T-201403410119945.

(3.) The respondent no. 3 after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record found that the name of Badri son of Shankar has been wrongly entered into the rights of records inasmuch as, Badri son of Shnakar was by caste Bhurji whereas, Kamta Prasad son of Ramdutt was by caste Brahmin. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the respondent no. 3 directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the rights of records by order dated 5.12.2014.