✦ High Court of India · 25 Mar 2025

Keshav Krishna v. Anil Singh and Others), which was instituted under Section

Case Details High Court of India · 25 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
25 Mar 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
3,456 words

3. Brief facts of the case, as appears from the petition and from the submissions advanced before this Court, are as under : (i) According to the case set forth by the petitioners, in nutshell, in the application preferred under Section 15-A of U.P. Act No.10 of 1953, is to the effect that the patta of the land in issue under the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 was illegally provided to the respondent no.4/Anil Singh i.e. patta related to Gata No. 793 Rakba 17 Biswa, 0.2150 hectares, Gata No. 2777/1 Rakba 1 Bigha 6 Biswa, 0.2390 hectares and Gata No. 6949 1 Bigha 2 Biswa, 0.2780 hectares situated at Hamlet - Barikhera Mawai, Pargana Maurawan, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao on 05.02.1990. The relevant para 4 of the application on reproduction reads as under :- यह दक उपरहक समपभणर रवनकवरर पर पवरररण नक ददनवअक 07.07.22 कह दवरद "धवरवन-4 अररनट नकल सववल दककर खतमनर नकल पवप कक और दवपकर सअ० 1 दनमन आधवरन पर पटव दनरसतरकरण कव ववद दवयर करनक कक आवशयकतव हहई हह। कक यह दक दवपकर सअ० 1 क- कधरत आवअटन कक समय भभदमहरन खकदतहर मरदभर एवअ पवततव शकणर ववलव वयदक नहह रहव हह तरव दवपकर सअ० 1 वषर कक रहर हह रह अतयनत नवबवधलर रव धरसकक हक मम कवनभनन पटव नहह दकयव रव सकतव रव तरव कधरत पटक मम सअरकक कव भर उलकख नहह हह। कक उम महर 4-5 रकबव 17 ख- यह दक पशनरत भभदम कक कधरत प‌टक कक आधवर पर रह दवधखल खवररर भभदम सअ० 793 दबसतवव यवनर 0.2150 हक० कव दवपकर कक हक मम दकयव रयव हह वह समबननधत नवयब तहसरलदवर नक धवरव 9 मम उदलधखत पवदवधवनन कक अअदकखर करतक चदक कधरत दवधखल खवररर आदकश ददनवअक 23.12.2003 कह हहए दकयव रयव हह चभ दवपकर सअ० 1 कक मवअ शरमतर रवरवतर हर गवम सभव मवई कक दनववरदचत गवम पधवन रहर हह इस कवरण समबननधत नयवयवलय दवरव दबनव आवशयक रवचच कक हर दवपकर सअ० 1 कक हक मम अवहधवदनक तररकक सक दवधखल खवररर कव आदकश अवहध पलहभन दककर करवयव हह इसधलए पटव दनरसत हहनक यहगय हह। र- यह दक कधरत पटक कक समय व दवधखल खवररर कक समय पशनअरत उपरहक भभदम पर पवरररण कक पभवरर बवदहह पवरररण कवदबर रहक हह इस कवरण उक भभदम आवअटन एवअ दवधखल खवररर कक समय ररक भभदम नहह रहर हह तरव वतरमवन भभदम सअ० 793 दबसतवव यवनर 0.2150 हक० धरसकक पतरवनर रवटव सअ० 640 रकबव 17 कव कत ल ककतफल पर तरन बरधव कव टव पवरररण कक बवबव रवमधरयववन कह हहआ रव। परनतत चकबनदर कक धलदपककय ततदट कक कवरण पवरररण कक बवबव कक नवम सक सक 17 दबसतवव रकबव अवलहदपत हहकर भभदवन यज सदमदत कक खवतक मक दरर हह रयव हह इस कवरण पटव दबनव अधधकवर कक हह। यह दक भभदम सअ0 793 रकबव 1 दबसतवव यवनर 0.2150 रकबव 1 हक० कक सवर - सवर रकबव 17 घ- बरघव 2 बरघव 6 रवटव सअ० 2771/1 दबसतवव कह दकयव रयव आवअटन इसधलए भर रलत हह कयहदक दवपकर सअ० 1 भभदमहरन खकदतहर मरदभर एवअ बवधलर सदसय नहह रव । रबदक रवचव मम बहहत सक अनतसभदचत रवदत कक एवअ दपछडर रवदत व पवरररण सवमवनय रवदत कक रररबर रकखव कक नरचक ररवनयवपन करनक ववलक भभदमहरन खकदतहर मरदभर कधरत पटक कक समय ममरभद रहक हह और आर भर हह। दबसतवव व 6949 ड- यह दक कधरत आवअटन कक आधवर पर रह दवधखल खवररर समबननधत नयवयवलय दवरव वषर 2003 मम दकयव रयव हह उस समय भभदवन यज सदमदत उ०प० एवअ धरलव भभदवन सदमदत उनवव पभवव मम नहह रहक हह बनलक ततसमय कवनभनन मवननरय धरलवधधकवरर महहदय उनवव भभदवन यज सदमदत कक अधयक रहक हह और वतरमवन मम भर हह।"

4. This Court in the judgment passed in the case of Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 3938, took note of various provisions of the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 and the pronouncements related to the same and this Court is of the view that the present case can be decided on the basis of the obsrevations made in the judgment passed in the case of Sayyed Abbas (Supra).

5. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts as also the observations of this Court passed in the case of Sayyed Abbas (Supra), this Court finds that the present petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. It is for the following reasons : - i) To establish that on 05.02.1990, the respondent no. 4/Anil Singh was a minor, no evidence/document was placed on record by the petitioners before the concerned authority, whose order is under challenge. ii) In the instant petition also the petitioners have not brought any evidence/document based upon which it can be deduced that on 05.02.1990 the respondent no. 4/Anil Singh was a minor, as alleged. iii) The electoral roll, relied upon in the petition to establish the fact that the respondent no. 4/Anil Singh was minor, is not a proof of age. iv) The findings in the impugned order is based upon the parivar register which is a statutory document prepared under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules 1970 made under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,

1947. v) The averments that other eligible persons were available at the time of providing patta to respondent no.4/Anil Singh i.e. on 05.02.1990, as alleged in the application, this Court is of the view that the said averments in absence of any evidence are completely vague and misconceived. vi) To establish the fact that predecessors-in-interest were in possession over the land in issue, no evidence/document was/is placed on record. vii) The application under Section 15-A of U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 for cancellation of patta provided on 05.02.1990 was preferred on 15.07.2022 and in this view of the matter, the application was highly belated and ought not to have entertained. viii) Report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, according to which some documents related to patta provided on

05.02.1990 to the respondent no.4/Anil Singh are not available, to the view of this Court, also supports the case of the other side. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Brief facts of the case, as appears from the petition and from the submissions advanced before this Court, are as under : (i) According to the case set forth by the petitioners, in nutshell, in the application preferred under Section 15-A of U.P. Act No.10 of 1953, is to the effect that the patta of the land in issue under the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 was illegally provided to the respondent no.4/Anil Singh i.e. patta related to Gata No. 793 Rakba 17 Biswa, 0.2150 hectares, Gata No. 2777/1 Rakba 1 Bigha 6 Biswa, 0.2390 hectares and Gata No. 6949 1 Bigha 2 Biswa, 0.2780 hectares situated at Hamlet - Barikhera Mawai, Pargana Maurawan, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao on 05.02.1990. The relevant para 4 of the application on reproduction reads as under :- यह दक उपरहक समपभणर रवनकवरर पर पवरररण नक ददनवअक 07.07.22 कह दवरद "धवरवन-4 अररनट नकल सववल दककर खतमनर नकल पवप कक और दवपकर सअ० 1 दनमन आधवरन पर पटव दनरसतरकरण कव ववद दवयर करनक कक आवशयकतव हहई हह। कक यह दक दवपकर सअ० 1 क- कधरत आवअटन कक समय भभदमहरन खकदतहर मरदभर एवअ पवततव शकणर ववलव वयदक नहह रहव हह तरव दवपकर सअ० 1 वषर कक रहर हह रह अतयनत नवबवधलर रव धरसकक हक मम कवनभनन पटव नहह दकयव रव सकतव रव तरव कधरत पटक मम सअरकक कव भर उलकख नहह हह। कक उम महर 4-5 रकबव 17 ख- यह दक पशनरत भभदम कक कधरत प‌टक कक आधवर पर रह दवधखल खवररर भभदम सअ० 793 दबसतवव यवनर 0.2150 हक० कव दवपकर कक हक मम दकयव रयव हह वह समबननधत नवयब तहसरलदवर नक धवरव 9 मम उदलधखत पवदवधवनन कक अअदकखर करतक चदक कधरत दवधखल खवररर आदकश ददनवअक 23.12.2003 कह हहए दकयव रयव हह चभ दवपकर सअ० 1 कक मवअ शरमतर रवरवतर हर गवम सभव मवई कक दनववरदचत गवम पधवन रहर हह इस कवरण समबननधत नयवयवलय दवरव दबनव आवशयक रवचच कक हर दवपकर सअ० 1 कक हक मम अवहधवदनक तररकक सक दवधखल खवररर कव आदकश अवहध पलहभन दककर करवयव हह इसधलए पटव दनरसत हहनक यहगय हह। र- यह दक कधरत पटक कक समय व दवधखल खवररर कक समय पशनअरत उपरहक भभदम पर पवरररण कक पभवरर बवदहह पवरररण कवदबर रहक हह इस कवरण उक भभदम आवअटन एवअ दवधखल खवररर कक समय ररक भभदम नहह रहर हह तरव वतरमवन भभदम सअ० 793 दबसतवव यवनर 0.2150 हक० धरसकक पतरवनर रवटव सअ० 640 रकबव 17 कव कत ल ककतफल पर तरन बरधव कव टव पवरररण कक बवबव रवमधरयववन कह हहआ रव। परनतत चकबनदर कक धलदपककय ततदट कक कवरण पवरररण कक बवबव कक नवम सक सक 17 दबसतवव रकबव अवलहदपत हहकर भभदवन यज सदमदत कक खवतक मक दरर हह रयव हह इस कवरण पटव दबनव अधधकवर कक हह। यह दक भभदम सअ0 793 रकबव 1 दबसतवव यवनर 0.2150 रकबव 1 हक० कक सवर - सवर रकबव 17 घ- बरघव 2 बरघव 6 रवटव सअ० 2771/1 दबसतवव कह दकयव रयव आवअटन इसधलए भर रलत हह कयहदक दवपकर सअ० 1 भभदमहरन खकदतहर मरदभर एवअ बवधलर सदसय नहह रव । रबदक रवचव मम बहहत सक अनतसभदचत रवदत कक एवअ दपछडर रवदत व पवरररण सवमवनय रवदत कक रररबर रकखव कक नरचक ररवनयवपन करनक ववलक भभदमहरन खकदतहर मरदभर कधरत पटक कक समय ममरभद रहक हह और आर भर हह। दबसतवव व 6949 ड- यह दक कधरत आवअटन कक आधवर पर रह दवधखल खवररर समबननधत नयवयवलय दवरव वषर 2003 मम दकयव रयव हह उस समय भभदवन यज सदमदत उ०प० एवअ धरलव भभदवन सदमदत उनवव पभवव मम नहह रहक हह बनलक ततसमय कवनभनन मवननरय धरलवधधकवरर महहदय उनवव भभदवन यज सदमदत कक अधयक रहक हह और वतरमवन मम भर हह।"

4. This Court in the judgment passed in the case of Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 3938, took note of various provisions of the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 and the pronouncements related to the same and this Court is of the view that the present case can be decided on the basis of the obsrevations made in the judgment passed in the case of Sayyed Abbas (Supra).

5. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts as also the observations of this Court passed in the case of Sayyed Abbas (Supra), this Court finds that the present petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. It is for the following reasons : - i) To establish that on 05.02.1990, the respondent no. 4/Anil Singh was a minor, no evidence/document was placed on record by the petitioners before the concerned authority, whose order is under challenge. ii) In the instant petition also the petitioners have not brought any evidence/document based upon which it can be deduced that on 05.02.1990 the respondent no. 4/Anil Singh was a minor, as alleged. iii) The electoral roll, relied upon in the petition to establish the fact that the respondent no. 4/Anil Singh was minor, is not a proof of age. iv) The findings in the impugned order is based upon the parivar register which is a statutory document prepared under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules 1970 made under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,

1947. v) The averments that other eligible persons were available at the time of providing patta to respondent no.4/Anil Singh i.e. on 05.02.1990, as alleged in the application, this Court is of the view that the said averments in absence of any evidence are completely vague and misconceived. vi) To establish the fact that predecessors-in-interest were in possession over the land in issue, no evidence/document was/is placed on record. vii) The application under Section 15-A of U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 for cancellation of patta provided on 05.02.1990 was preferred on 15.07.2022 and in this view of the matter, the application was highly belated and ought not to have entertained. viii) Report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, according to which some documents related to patta provided on

05.02.1990 to the respondent no.4/Anil Singh are not available, to the view of this Court, also supports the case of the other side. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments