RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Triveni Shankar, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, for State of U.P. and Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Commissioner, dated 06.10.2008 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 08.09.2014 passed in proceeding arising out of suit under Section 229 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) THE petitioner filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 69/60 of 1989 -90) under Section 229 -B of the Act, on 02.05.1988, for declaring him as 'bhumidhar' of plot 77/2 (area 12 -0 -0 bigha) of village Nikarika, pargana Bhagwat, district Mirzapur. It was stated in the plaint that land in dispute was taken by him on patta on 30.04.1945 from the then zamindar and since then he was in cultivatory possession of it. The land in dispute was uneven land and after investing huge amount he made it cultivable. There is no forest on the land in dispute but Forest Department of State of U.P. illegally began to fix pillars over the land in dispute. It may be mentioned that Gaon Sabha filed written statement, admitting the case of the petitioner. Suit was contested of Forest Department of State of U.P. claiming that the land in dispute was reserve forest. Assistant Collector, by order dated 29.08.1991 decreed the suit. Forest Department of State of U.P. filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 140/212/122/69 of 1992 against the aforesaid decree. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by judgment dated 06.10.2008, held that land in dispute was declared as reserve forest but notifications have been ignored on the basis of report that plot 77 was not included in the notification without taking notice of the fact that at the time of the notification under Forest Act, disputed land was plot 74 and new number 77 was allotted thereafter during consolidation. The petitioner did not file any objection during consolidation claiming title over the land in dispute and in consolidation the land in dispute was recorded as East Forest Department Mirzapur and suit of the petitioner was barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Alleged entry made by Supervisor Kanoongo, recording the name of the petitioner is forgery in the revenue records. The witnesses produced by the petitioner were not reliable witnesses in as much as they were not residents of the village and could not state the boundary of the land in dispute. The original patta was not filed by the petitioner as such adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioner. The petitioner was Lekhpal and there was every chance that he would have fabricated various khasras. There is interpolation in the khasra produced by the petitioner. Rent receipts issued by zamindar was not reliable. Up to 1968, there was no sub -plot of plot 74, even then in khasra filed by the petitioner, plot 74/2 has been mentioned. All the aforesaid facts have been illegally ignored by Assistant Collector. On these findings, the revision was allowed and order of Assistant Collector was set aside and the name of the petitioner was directed to be deleted from the land in dispute. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1 of 2008 -09) against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Board of Revenue, U.P., who by order dated 09.08.2014, held that while setting aside the findings of fact, recorded by trial court, by the revisional court, the matter ought to have been remanded to trail court for deciding the suit afresh. On these findings the revision was allowed and order of revsional court as well as trial court were set aside and the matter was remanded to Assistant Collector for deciding the suit afresh after hearing the parties and after examining the entries of the revenue records of the year 1356 F and 1359 F giving opportunity of evidence. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;