RAM SURAT RAM, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri O.P. Singh Sikarwar, for the petitioners, Standing Counsel, for State of U.P., Sri T.M. Khan, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Sri Rama Kant Shukla, for respondent -5.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Chief Revenue Officer dated 27.05.2008, directing to delete the names of the petitioners from the land in dispute, Sub -Divisional Officer dated 15.07.2013, rejecting the recall applications of the petitioners and Board of Revenue U.P. dated 19.12.2013, dismissing the revision of the petitioners, passed in proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) HEERA Lal Dhar Dubey (respondent -5) filed an application before the Collector for deleting the names of the petitioners from plots 305 (old plot 158) (area 0.34 acre) and 306 (old plot 159) (area 0.30 acre) of village Senduli Benduli, tahsil and district Gorakhpur. On this application, the Collector by order dated 15.12.2005 called for a report from Tahsildar. Tahsildar submitted a report that in khatauni 1379 F -1381 F, plot 158 (area 0.34 acre) and plot 159 (area 0.30 acre) were recorded as "navin parati". In khatauni 1382 F -1384 F, plot 158 (area 0.34 acre) was recorded as "navin parati" and in remark column an amaldaramad has been made mutating the name of Sirtaj son of Pale on the basis of alleged order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 28.02.1976, on the basis of registered agreement as sirdar and plot 159 (area 0.30 acre) were recorded as "navin parati" and in remark column an amaldaramad has been made mutating the name of Mahanand son of Dhunmun on the basis of alleged order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 28.02.1976 on the basis of registered agreement as sirdar. The record relating to the aforesaid cases were not available in the record room. The aforesaid plots were in the shape of dam and dam patari on the spot. In second consolidation, in CH Form -2 -A, gadaha, dam and dam patari were noted against the aforesaid plots. These plots were chak out and after consolidation new numbers 305 was allotted to plot 158 and 306 was allotted to plot 159. After death of Mahanand, names of his sons Brij Bihari, Shankar, Heera and Rajan were recorded. Dam and dam patari were still on spot. Names of Sirtaj and Mahanand were recorded by making forgery in the revenue record and liable to be deleted. This report was forwarded by Sub -Divisional Officer. Chief Revenue Officer by order dated 27.05.2008 approved the report and directed to delete the names of the petitioners from the land in dispute. Sirtaj and Brij Bihari (petitioners -1 and 2), Shankar and Heera (petitioners -3 and 4), Smt. Chandra Prabha Singh (petitioner -6), Smt. Indrawati Devi and Smt. Kamla Devi (petitioner -5 and 8) and Mithai filed their separate recall applications for recalling the order dated 27.05.2008. All the recall applications were consolidated and heard together by Sub -Divisional Officer, who by order dated 15.07.2013 held that land in dispute is at present dam and dam patari as such it could not be allotted. The alleged allotment was not approved by Sub -Divisional Officer. Amaldaramads made in the revenue record are not proved to have been made in accordance with law. The names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records after making forgery as such they were not required to be given opportunity of hearing before deleting the forged entries. On these findings, recall applications were dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2583/LR/ 2012 -13) from the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by Board of Revenue U.P. by order dated 19.12.2013. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;