Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta holding brief of Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh for the petitioners and Sri Umesh Vatsa holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Singh for the contesting Respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 26.9.2014 allowing the revision of Krishna Chand (respondent -5) and setting aside the order of Additional Collector dated 9.11.2009 canceling the patta of respondent -5.
(2.) THE petitioners filed an application for cancellation of patta of respondent -5 dated 25.12.1995 in respect of plot No. 364/2, area 0.47 acre of village Jigani Khas, pargana Kopacheet Sharki, district Ballia on the allegation that the land in dispute was a tank on the spot, which was being used by the villagers for customary use and no right could accrue over the land of tank and patta dated 25.12.1995 granted to respondent -5 of the land in dispute was liable to be cancelled. The case was contested by respondent -5, who had stated that the land in dispute was recorded as naveen parti in the revenue record and the Land Management Committee had rightly granted patta of the land in dispute to him. Since the date of allotment his name was mutated in the revenue record and he was in possession over it. The application being highly time barred and the applicants were not eligible persons as such they could not be treated as aggrieved persons by the patta allotted to him. The case was tried by the Collector, who by order dated 9.11.2009 found that the land in dispute was the land of tank and was a public utility land and from the report submitted by the authorities it was clear that papers regarding allotment of land in dispute were not available in Tehsil. Although it is alleged that the order of mutation was incorporated by Chandra Dev Ram, the then Revenue Inspector but he in his explanation denied of passing any such endorsement as such the name of Krishna Chand was recorded by committing forgery in the record. On this ground he allowed the application and held that the order of mutation in favour of Krishna Chand was a forgery and accordingly alleged patta granted to him on 25.12.1995 was cancelled and the land in dispute was directed to be recorded as tank. Krishna Chand filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 13/25/25B) against the aforesaid order. Before the Revisional Court, Krishna Chand filed some documents which were received by him through Right to Information Act. The revision was heard by the Revisional Court, who by the impugned order dated 26.9.2014 found that the land in dispute was not recorded as tank rather it was recorded as naveen parti in CH Forms 41 and 45. Although the names of three persons were directed to be mutated simultaneously on one resolution but only the patta of Krishna Chand alone was sought to be cancelled while there is no objection in respect of other two persons. Although there is a report of Tehsil authorities itself that there is no record available relating to allotment of land since 1995 to 2000. Krishna Chand has filed a copy of the patta as well as a Photostat copy of the resolution on which the signature of the Pradhan was tallying. The name of Krishna Chand was recorded on the basis of patta. The patta was granted in the year 1995 while the application for cancellation was filed in the year 2007 as such it is highly time barred. The complainants were not eligible persons and they cannot be treated as aggrieved persons. On this finding the Revisional Court allowed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that Photostat copies of CH Forms 41 and 45 were not admissible in evidence. However, the land in dispute was recorded as the land of pokhari in Khasra 1359 Fasli and its nature cannot be converted. In any case, the land being the land of public utility land falls in the categories specified under section 132 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and no right can accrue to any one. Otherwise also the record relating to allotment of the land was not available in Tehsil. In such circumstances the forged papers have been ignored by the Collector but the Additional Commissioner relied upon the forged and fabricated papers filed by Krishna Chand and illegally allowed the revision.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record.;