High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Nand Lal Yadav and Mr. Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsels for the petitioners, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was initiated which was registered as case No. 74 before the Collector. The Collector vide order dated 22.8.2001 ordered for correction of entry in respect to the plot in question. Against the order dated 22.8.2001, revision was filed on behalf of petitioners before Board of Revenue which was registered as revision No. 231 of 2000-01. The aforementioned revision was dismissed vide order dated 28.9.2001. Against the order dated 28.9.2001, review application was filed on behalf of petitioners which was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2001 hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.8.2001 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 28.9.2001 passed by respondent no.1 in revision No. 231 of 2001 and order dated 27.12.2001 passed by respondent no.1 in review application. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for not dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute in pursuance of the order of Collector dated 22.8.2001 passed in case No. 74, State Vs. Sagar and Others."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 11.2.2002 and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect to the plot in question.

4. Counsels for the petitioners submitted that proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has illegally been entertained and the entry of the petitioners has been expunged in arbitrary manner. They further submitted that lease was executed in favour of petitioners in the year 1976. They further submitted that aforementioned lease was also approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and petitioners remained in possession over the same since the date of execution of lease deed. They further submitted that entry of the petitioners has been expunged in the arbitrary manner in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 without cancelling the lease executed in favour of petitioners. They submitted that revision and review application filed by petitioners have also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. They submitted that impugned orders should be set aside and petitioners' entry on the basis of lease executed in their favour should be maintained.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned passed in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. They further submitted that in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the report was submitted to the effect that no lease was executed in favour of petitioners, as such, the entry of the petitioners has rightly been expunged by the Collector under the impugned order. They further submitted that Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the revision as well as the review application filed by petitioners. They submitted that no interference is required and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the Collector has expunged the entry of the petitioners in respect to the plot in question and the order has been maintained in revision by Board of Revenue.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Collector while passing the order dated 22.8.2001 will be relevant which is as under:- " नययययलय कललकटर/ जजलय उप ससचयलक चकबसदद, आजमगढ। अनतगरत धयरय 33/39/225 भभ रयजसव अजधननयम बनयम सयगर सय० ममजय- आजमगढ। उबयरपपर लखमदपपर परगनय बललयदमलतयबयद तहसदल लयलगसज, जनपद- आदलश कल पकष ससखयय 86 पर रयमबभझ पपत घभरनवन कल नयम 3983 नम०-200 कडद, कमयसक-45 सल कक गयद। इस पर अमलदरयमद पपत 57 ख कल अनपसयर कमयसक-28 आजमगढ सल ख कय नमलयन जजत चकबसदद आकयर पत ख कल पर सपरसतद पपत जगगन कल पर अफनद पपत नवशयम कल नयम गयटय पर जदउत पपत जगगन कल नयम गयटय ससखयय पर समजध पपत जगगन कल नयम 3944 नम०/-200 कडद, पर शद लयल पर सवर पपत फल र कल कल पकष कडद असनकत हह और जजत चकबसदद आकयर पत 23 भयग-3 पर नभन वयनकयय कय नयम असनकत नकयय गयय हह और इस पकयर कल फजर मलरल दयरय भद गयम उबयरपपर लखमदपपर परगनय बललयदमलतयबयद तहसदल लयलगसज, समबननधत कक नष आवसटन पतयवलद मम उपलबध 57 व 87 23 भयग-3 अनपरप हजनय चयनहए थय और पपत 57 नयम गयटय ससखयय 2944 नम०/-200 कडद, कमयसक-29 ससखयय 4045 नम०/-500 कडद, कमयसक-30 4045 नम०/-300 कडद, कमयसक-31 कमयसक-43 पपत वचन कल नयम गयटय ससखयय 5822 नम०/-200 कडद, कमयसक-53 नयम 3783 नम०/-300 ससखयय 86 इनदयज कज बनल रहनल कय औनचतय नहह हह। मम कमयसक 28 पर तदनपसयर जजत चकबसदद आकयर पत 23 भयग-3 सयगर पपत बयबभननदन, कमयसक-29 पर कल शज पपत पर रयजय रयम पपत सयगर, पर उदयभयन पपत रयमलगन, कमयसक-43 रयमलगन, कमयसक-31 कमयसक-45 पर रयजलनद पपत सयगर व कमयसक 53 पर कमयसक 42 सदतय रयम पपत नकछलद कल नयम असनकत उपरजक सभद पनवनषययय ननरसत नकयय जयतय हह। उपरजक नववयनदत भभनम पभवर कक भययनत रयजसव अनभललखय मम दजर हजवम। आवसटन पतयवलद मम ससलग पपत 57 बयद कययरवयहद पतयवलद दयजखल दफतर हजवम। कल पकष ससखयय 86 पर अमरनयथ पपत रयमलगन, कमयसक-30 ख कल अनपसयर अमलदरयमद कक कययरवयहद नकयय जयए। पर रयममभरत पपत ननठप रद, व 87 व 87 ( कललकटर/ ह० अपठनदय आर०एन० नतपयठद० जजलय उप ससचयलक चकबसदद आजमगढ।" 9. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Collector as quoted above fully demonstrate that no lease has been executed in favour of petitioners as name of lessee mentioned in Z.A. Form-57 Kha is different to the name mentioned in C.H. Form 23 Part 3, as such, the name of petitioners cannot be recorded over the plot in question. The finding of fact recorded by Collector has been maintained in revision by Board of Revenue.

10. It is material to mention that Z.A. Form- 57 Kha is the proof of allotment and if the name of petitioners are not mentioned in Z.A. Form-57 Kha then the name of petitioners cannot be mentioned in C.H. Form 23 Part 3.

11. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the Collector, there is no scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. The writ petition is dismissed.

13. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Nand Lal Yadav and Mr. Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsels for the petitioners, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was initiated which was registered as case No. 74 before the Collector. The Collector vide order dated 22.8.2001 ordered for correction of entry in respect to the plot in question. Against the order dated 22.8.2001, revision was filed on behalf of petitioners before Board of Revenue which was registered as revision No. 231 of 2000-01. The aforementioned revision was dismissed vide order dated 28.9.2001. Against the order dated 28.9.2001, review application was filed on behalf of petitioners which was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2001 hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.8.2001 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 28.9.2001 passed by respondent no.1 in revision No. 231 of 2001 and order dated 27.12.2001 passed by respondent no.1 in review application. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for not dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute in pursuance of the order of Collector dated 22.8.2001 passed in case No. 74, State Vs. Sagar and Others."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 11.2.2002 and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect to the plot in question.

4. Counsels for the petitioners submitted that proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has illegally been entertained and the entry of the petitioners has been expunged in arbitrary manner. They further submitted that lease was executed in favour of petitioners in the year 1976. They further submitted that aforementioned lease was also approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and petitioners remained in possession over the same since the date of execution of lease deed. They further submitted that entry of the petitioners has been expunged in the arbitrary manner in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 without cancelling the lease executed in favour of petitioners. They submitted that revision and review application filed by petitioners have also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. They submitted that impugned orders should be set aside and petitioners' entry on the basis of lease executed in their favour should be maintained.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned passed in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. They further submitted that in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the report was submitted to the effect that no lease was executed in favour of petitioners, as such, the entry of the petitioners has rightly been expunged by the Collector under the impugned order. They further submitted that Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the revision as well as the review application filed by petitioners. They submitted that no interference is required and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the Collector has expunged the entry of the petitioners in respect to the plot in question and the order has been maintained in revision by Board of Revenue.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Collector while passing the order dated 22.8.2001 will be relevant which is as under:- " नययययलय कललकटर/ जजलय उप ससचयलक चकबसदद, आजमगढ। अनतगरत धयरय 33/39/225 भभ रयजसव अजधननयम बनयम सयगर सय० ममजय- आजमगढ। उबयरपपर लखमदपपर परगनय बललयदमलतयबयद तहसदल लयलगसज, जनपद- आदलश कल पकष ससखयय 86 पर रयमबभझ पपत घभरनवन कल नयम 3983 नम०-200 कडद, कमयसक-45 सल कक गयद। इस पर अमलदरयमद पपत 57 ख कल अनपसयर कमयसक-28 आजमगढ सल ख कय नमलयन जजत चकबसदद आकयर पत ख कल पर सपरसतद पपत जगगन कल पर अफनद पपत नवशयम कल नयम गयटय पर जदउत पपत जगगन कल नयम गयटय ससखयय पर समजध पपत जगगन कल नयम 3944 नम०/-200 कडद, पर शद लयल पर सवर पपत फल र कल कल पकष कडद असनकत हह और जजत चकबसदद आकयर पत 23 भयग-3 पर नभन वयनकयय कय नयम असनकत नकयय गयय हह और इस पकयर कल फजर मलरल दयरय भद गयम उबयरपपर लखमदपपर परगनय बललयदमलतयबयद तहसदल लयलगसज, समबननधत कक नष आवसटन पतयवलद मम उपलबध 57 व 87 23 भयग-3 अनपरप हजनय चयनहए थय और पपत 57 नयम गयटय ससखयय 2944 नम०/-200 कडद, कमयसक-29 ससखयय 4045 नम०/-500 कडद, कमयसक-30 4045 नम०/-300 कडद, कमयसक-31 कमयसक-43 पपत वचन कल नयम गयटय ससखयय 5822 नम०/-200 कडद, कमयसक-53 नयम 3783 नम०/-300 ससखयय 86 इनदयज कज बनल रहनल कय औनचतय नहह हह। मम कमयसक 28 पर तदनपसयर जजत चकबसदद आकयर पत 23 भयग-3 सयगर पपत बयबभननदन, कमयसक-29 पर कल शज पपत पर रयजय रयम पपत सयगर, पर उदयभयन पपत रयमलगन, कमयसक-43 रयमलगन, कमयसक-31 कमयसक-45 पर रयजलनद पपत सयगर व कमयसक 53 पर कमयसक 42 सदतय रयम पपत नकछलद कल नयम असनकत उपरजक सभद पनवनषययय ननरसत नकयय जयतय हह। उपरजक नववयनदत भभनम पभवर कक भययनत रयजसव अनभललखय मम दजर हजवम। आवसटन पतयवलद मम ससलग पपत 57 बयद कययरवयहद पतयवलद दयजखल दफतर हजवम। कल पकष ससखयय 86 पर अमरनयथ पपत रयमलगन, कमयसक-30 ख कल अनपसयर अमलदरयमद कक कययरवयहद नकयय जयए। पर रयममभरत पपत ननठप रद, व 87 व 87 ( कललकटर/ ह० अपठनदय आर०एन० नतपयठद० जजलय उप ससचयलक चकबसदद आजमगढ।" 9. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Collector as quoted above fully demonstrate that no lease has been executed in favour of petitioners as name of lessee mentioned in Z.A. Form-57 Kha is different to the name mentioned in C.H. Form 23 Part 3, as such, the name of petitioners cannot be recorded over the plot in question. The finding of fact recorded by Collector has been maintained in revision by Board of Revenue.

10. It is material to mention that Z.A. Form- 57 Kha is the proof of allotment and if the name of petitioners are not mentioned in Z.A. Form-57 Kha then the name of petitioners cannot be mentioned in C.H. Form 23 Part 3.

11. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the Collector, there is no scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. The writ petition is dismissed.

13. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad