UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.1998, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, as also the order dated 11.1.2001, passed by the Board of Revenue. In fact, an application was made before the Sub Divisional Officer for correction of certain entries, which application was rejected, against which an appeal was preferred before the Additional Collector. The said appeal was also dismissed, therefore, a Second Appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner Jabalpur. The Additional Commissioner after examining the records, reached to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the revenue authorities were incorrect and, therefore, allowed the appeal vide order dated 27.10.1998. Against this order, a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue by the petitioner herein, which revision has been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the documents, sought to be produced on record even today, it would be clear that the land in dispute was recorded as the Government land of the Defence Department and, therefore, it was not to be treated as private land, which could be purchased by the respondent No.1 under a registered sale deed. Since the revenue entries indicated in the documents so placed on record remained unchanged, the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, was not correct. The findings in fact recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer were to be affirmed, but erroneously the appeal of the respondent No.1 was allowed. This particular aspect was not considered by the Board of Revenue as well and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(3.) PER contra, it is contended by learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1 that after conducting a detailed enquiry, the Additional Commissioner reached to the conclusion that in the Notification dated 14.11.1939, the land in dispute was not included and, therefore, the said land would not fall within the ownership of the Defence Department of Government of India and, thus, after finding such facts, since the order impugned in appeal has been set aside and direction is given to record the land in the name of the petitioner, the order was rightly passed by the Additional Commissioner. After appreciating the Notification and taking into consideration the overall facts, the Board of Revenue has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, the interference in the order impugned is not called for. It is also contended that merely recording of the name of the petitioner in the revenue entries, in absence of the Notification, required to be issued under the law for the said purposes, the title of the petitioner would not be made out and as such, the findings recorded by the appellate revenue Court cannot be said to be bad.