Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.V. Jaiswal for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Collector Rampur dated 28.5.2010 by which the application of the petitioners for mutation on the basis of Z.A. Form 58 has been rejected and the matter was remanded to Sub -Divisional Officer with the direction that if the petitioners were in possession over the land in dispute the possession would be handed over to the Gram Samaj so that the land in dispute could be allotted to the eligible persons and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 19.2.2014 dismissing the revision from the aforesaid order.
(2.) ON the allegation that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners by the Land Management Committee in the year 1987, the petitioners filed an application on 29.8.1996 for recording their names over the land in dispute on the basis of pattas executed by the Land Management Committee. The Additional Collector by the order dated 20.1.2005 rejected the application of the petitioners. Additional Collector found that photostat copy of the pattas produced by the petitioners did not bear the signature of the Sub -Divisional Officer and there was nothing on the record to show that the resolution passed by the Land Management Committee dated 28.12.1986 was approved by the Sub -Divisional Officer. In such circumstances as the mutation application was highly belated, it was rejected by the Additional Collector. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in Revision No. 78/06 -07 under section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad, who by order dated 28.5.2008 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 20.1.2005 and remanded the case to the Court below for decision in accordance with law. After remand the Collector, Rampur by order dated 28.5.2010 found that receipt was issued by the Land Management Committee from which it was proved that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners but there is nothing on record to show that allotment was approved by the Sub -Divisional Officer. Shamshuddin and Shahbuddin (petitioners -3 and 4) were found to be sons and Smt. Meharbano (petitioner -1) was found to be daughter -in -law of the then Fradhan Azmat Khan. Mohd. Ahmad (petitioner -2) and Shajid (petitioner -5) were also found to be relations of Azmat Khan but no permission for allotment of the land in dispute was taken from the Collector. On the basis of aforesaid facts it has been held that Pradhan had issued fake Z.A. Form 58. On these findings the Collector dismissed the application of the petitioners. Against the order of the Collector Smt. Meharbano and others filed a revision before the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner who by the impugned order dated 19.2.2014 found that earlier the petitioners have produced photostat copy of the Z.A. Form 58 before the Collector, which did not bear the signature of Tehsildar. They have filed original pattas Z.A. Form 58 on 20.9.2009 which bears the seal and signature of Tesildar. Thus, it appears that Pradhan has secured the papers in order to give undue advantage to his relations and on this finding the revision was dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record.;