SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S.R. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State and its authorities respondents. Petitioner is Lekhpal, posted at Galand Tehsil Ghoulana, District Panchsheel Nagar (Hapur). He has been suspended through order dated 16.6.2012 which is challenged through this writ petition and is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The allegation against the petitioner is that he gave false report so that names of private person could be entered as Bhoomidhar over gaon sabha land which consisted of pond grave yard etc. and that he filed report of possession on the basis of alleged allotment of 1989 after 22 years even though the name of the alleged allottees was not recorded in the revenue record.
(2.) THERE is absolutely nothing wrong in the impugned suspension order. However, the documents annexed along with the writ petition disclose a horrible state of affairs and confirm the view of this Court taken in several cases that Gaon Sabha/State property particularly in districts Gautam Budh Naga, Ghaziabad and Meerut is being looted with active assistance of revenue officers on large scale. In this regard reference may be made to a judgment given by me reported in Dina Nath Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (108) R.D. 321, relevant paragraph of the said authority are quoted below: "10. If the Collector finds that no patta was executed in 1968 and Ram Roop and his family members usurped the property of the Gaon Sabha on the ground that prior to 1969, he was Pradhan, then stern action must be taken/ recommended to be taken against the C.O. who passed the order on 12.02.1997. Collector may also reopen all such cases in the District in which Gaon Sabha property was mutated in the name of private persons in the similar manner. If patta is executed, then immediately name of the allottee is mutated in the revenue records. Few months delay in getting the names mutated in the revenue records on the basis of pattas is understandable but few decades or few years delay is not at all understandable. 11. The experience of the Court is that during consolidation proceedings, Consolidation Authorities/ Officers liberally donate the Gaon Sabha properties to influential/ resourceful persons by passing such orders as has been passed in the instant case. 12. Accordingly, all the Collectors of all the Districts in the State are directed to reopen such cases where names of private persons are entered in revenue records on the basis of old pattas or adverse possession over Gaon Sabha land and correct the illegality by taking suo motu action. However, no orders shall be set aside without issuing notice and hearing affected persons. If notice through registered post is not served then it may be served through publication in the newspaper also. If it is found that some Consolidation Officer or S.O.C. or D.D.C. has done similar thing, then the action must be proposed to be taken against him also. 13. Supreme Court has held that fraud vitiates even most solemn proceedings vide Mahboob Sahab Vs. Syed Ismail and others, AIR 1995 SC 1205 (Para -9), United India Insurance Company Vs. Rajendra Singh, AIR 2000 SC 1165 and A.V. Papaya Sastry Vs. Government of A.P. and others, AIR 2007 SC 1546 (Para -39)." The said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court in the form of SLP(Civil) SC 4398 of 2010 Dina Nath Vs. State. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 29.3.2010 by holding that "The learned Single Judge could see through the game of Ramroop and like and dismissed the writ petition by recording the following reasons" and thereafter quoted almost my entire judgment in inverted commas and approved the same. A similar matter has recently been decided by me pertaining to Ghaziabad on 1.3.2012. The said judgment is reported in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Lajja Ram 2012 RJ 777 para 30 of the said authority is quoted below: "Accordingly, it is held that whenever a person comes along with the case that Gaon Sabha land was allotted to him or some order was passed by any Court in his favour declaring his right over Gaon Sabha land or some revenue entry was in his favour long before but during last several years his name is not recorded in the revenue records then an irrebuttable presumption amounting to almost conclusive proof must be drawn to the effect that allotment order or entry is forged." In the instant case it appears that there is a racket involving even higher officers to usurp the State/Gaon Sabha land. It is alleged that some land was allotted by the Gaon Sabha in the year 1989 copy of proceedings of land management Committee is Annexure 2 -B to the writ petition. In the said resolution itself it is mentioned that the land is entered in the revenue record as pond and grave yard, however, it was not being used as such. It is quite apparent that no such allotment was made for the reason that the name of none of the allottees (there appears to be 10 allottees) was ever entered in the revenue record. It is inconceivable that after getting allotment of prime land allottees will not make any effort to get their name mutated. Order of approval of S.D.O. of 30.5.1989 also appears to be quite forged and manufactured after several years and antedated for the same reason i.e. in case allotment had been made and approved then allottees would have got their names recorded in the Revenue Records.
(3.) WHAT is shocking is that this fraud has got judicial seal also. S.D.O./Assistant Collector Ist Class Hapur decided a case bearing no.8/9 of 2002 Raghuraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act on 9.7.2003 copy of the said order is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The name of the officer is not legible. It is quite baffling that in the order dated 9.7.2003 it is mentioned that the plaintiffs case was that land was allotted in the year 1989 to the mother of the plaintiff, however, she died in 1986 and plaintiffs were in possession, but, State authorities tried to interfere in their possession and thereafter on inquiry and perusal of revenue record it was found that land was entered as Jauhar (pond). In spite of it through the said order declaration was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The S.D.O. who passed the said order is directly responsible for the usurpation of the State/Gaon Sabha Land. The Court wonders how plaintiffs possession could be held without there being any entry in the revenue record and without there being any allegation that any effort to get the name entered in the Revenue record was made. In the order dated 9.7.2003 it is mentioned that Lekhpal admitted the possession of the plaintiff. The S.D.O. Hapur did not even bother to consider as to how pond or grave yard could be allotted. The said order is most important link in chain of fraud. The said order is non est in the eye of law.;