RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN 1917 revisional survey was done. Upon conclusion thereof, it was reported that R.S.Plot Mo. 1454 belongs to the then British Emperor. In 1947, upon independence, the Central Government, therefore, in terms of the findings of the said survey became the owner of the said property. Until date no one has taken any step to alter the said declaration made in the said survey. It appears that on 4th December, 1972 the Circle Officer of Gopalganj submitted a report that certain persons have unauthorisedly encroached upon the land situated in the said plot. The said report resulted in an encroachment case being initiated against the appellant. The case was decided against the appellant. Appeal preferred by the appellant against the said decision was dismissed, whereupon appellant filed a writ petition registered as C.W.J.C.No.640 of 1976. The said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court, where while both the orders passed in the encroachment proceeding were quashed, the matter was remitted back to the D.C.L.R. for fresh consideration. In terms thereof, the S.D.O., Gopalganj took fresh evidence, reconsidered the matter and disposed of the matter by the order dated 28th June, 1983. He held that the land is a public land and is used for various public purposes as mentioned in the order.

(2.) The appellant preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed, whereupon the State Government made an application under section 13 of the Act. That having been allowed, the appellant approached this by filing a yet another writ petition. It had been the contention of the appellant that original C.S.Plot No.847 belonged to the Hathua Raj and the said plot had an area of 3.74 acres. It is the contention of the appellant that of the said 3.47 acres, 1.70 acres was acquired and the remaining 2.04 acres was recorded in R.S.Plot No. 1454, but by mistake, in the revisional survey, it was indicated that Quaisre Hind was the owner thereof, instead of Hathua Raj. It was stated that Hathua Raj settled the land in favour of Kishun Sah on payment of Nazrana and rental and the appellant or his predecessor in interest is a transferee from Kishun Sah by registered deeds.

(3.) WHAT the appellant is contending may be correct, but at the same time there is a finding that the land in question is a public land and used for public purposes as that of Brahm Sthan, Sati Sthan, Durga Sthan, Hanuman Mandir, Gandhi Bhawan, Play Ground of children, and a Community Well, Rasta for public use, etc. It may also be possible that the land belonged to Hathua Raj and not to Quatsre Hind, but there is no evidence of settlement by or on behalf of Hathua Raj in favour of Kishun Sah and accordingly Kishun Sah could not transfer title to the land to the appellant or to his predecessor. However, these matters are required to be sorted out. The Court has, therefore, directed for sorting out these matters by filing a civil suit.