Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.C. Singh, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for State of U.P., for the respondents. The writ petition was filed against the orders of Sub -Divisional Officer, dated 30.10.2011 and Commissioner dated 16.4.2014, passed in proceeding under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) THE dispute relates to plot 702 -D (area 1.14 acre) of village Kurawal, tappa Bankat, tahsil Gola, district Gorakhpur. Admittedly, plot 702 (area 41.549 acre) (old plot 1234 (area 41.59 acre) of village Kurawal, tappa Bankat, tahsil Gola, district Gorakhpur was recorded as river 'Kuano' in the khatauni 1323 -F. It is also admitted that the land in dispute is affected by alluvial and delivual action of the river 'Kuano', in paragraph -4 of the writ petition. In khatauni 1389 -F -1394 -F, an area of 1.14 acre = 0.462 hectare of plot 702 -D was recorded in khata 219 along with plot 292, in the name of Ram Narain Lal, father of the petitioners from 1394 -F as bhumidhar with transferable right. After death of Ram Narain Lal, the names of his sons Anil Kumar, Shiv Kumar and Pramod Kumar (petitioners) were recorded over it. Surya Prakash, Dinesh Yadav, Brahm Deo and Ram Shakal Yadav filed a complaint before Sub -Divisional Officer that plot 702 was the land of river. By committing forgery, names of various persons were recorded on this plots over different area. Sub -Divisional Officer directed Tahsildar to conduct an inquiry in this respect. The petitioners filed their objection before Tahsildar and stated that as the land in dispute was recorded in the name of their ancestor as such long standing entry cannot be corrected in the proceeding under section 33/39 of the Act. They also got filed an affidavit of then Pradhan stating therein that Gaon Sabha had no concern with the land in dispute, which was in possession of the petitioner from time of their ancestor. Dinesh Yadav and Ram Shakal Yadav also filed their affidavits denying their signatures on the complaint. Tahsildar submitted his report dated 1.10.2003 stating therein that Gaon Sabha was competent to protect the properties of Gaon Sabha, complaint by private person for Gaon Sabha property was not maintainable. Names of the petitioners were recorded from the time of their ancestors and long standing entry cannot be corrected in the proceeding under section 33/39 of the Act Sub -Divisional Officer by order dated 12.11.2003 dropped the proceeding. Surya Prakash then filed a revision against the aforesaid order. Additional Commissioner by order dated 29.6.2004 dismissed the revision.
(3.) SURYA Prakash then again filed another complaint dated 30.11.2009 before the Commissioner, who by order dated 4.12.2009 called for a report from Tahsildar. Tahsildar submitted a report dated 29.12.2009 stating therein that the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue record by making forgery over plot 702 -D (area 1.14 acre). On this report, Assistant Collector by order dated 17.2.2010 directed for deleting the names of the petitioners from the land in dispute. The petitioners filed Writ -C No. 13008 of 2010 against the aforesaid order, which was allowed by this Court on 15.3.2010 and order dated 17.2.2010 was set aside and the matter was remanded to Deputy Collector for deciding the case afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Then the petitioners filed an objection dated 22.3.2010 before Deputy Collector stating therein that Ram Narain Lal was in possession of the land in dispute for last 30 years and his name was recorded as such. The village was placed under consolidation operation by notification dated 8.11.1969 and entry of the name of Ram Narain Lal was maintained in consolidation. Khatauni of the year 1359 -F and basic consolidation year were not available. Entry made during consolidation cannot be deleted in the proceeding under section 33/39 of the Act. The complaint filed by Surya Prakash in this respect was already dismissed by Sub -Divisional Officer by order dated 12.11.2003 and revision filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on 29.6.2004.;