Jayram vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And

1. Heard Sri Chandra Kishore, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to the rights of the petitioner which has been crystallized U/S 122B(4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act which has been confirmed by order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, Amethi by order dated 13.04.2017 by which the petitioner has been declared as Sankramaniya Bhumidhar.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner claims himself to be belonging to scheduled caste under landless person and was in possession of Gata No. 2256, Village Tiloi and moved an application U/S 122B(4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act. On his application, reports were called from the Revenue Inspector who submitted his report on 18.11.2007 stating that the possession of the petitioner on the said land is for more than 10 years and a report was also forwarded by the Tehsildar dated 22.11.2007 with regard to the aforesaid land and considering the aforesaid reports, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed order in favour of petitioner dated 07.12.2007 granting him bhumidhari rights over the said land. 2 WRIB No. 823 of 2025

4. After a period of nearly 5 years, an application for recall was filed by respondent No. 3 stating that the aforesaid land is his ancestral land on which 100 Eucalyptus trees, 3 Jamun trees, 01 Neem tree, 4 Mahua trees and 02 Ber trees were standing and on the said land a graveyard of ancestors are also existing and therefore on such land rights of the petitioner U/S 122B(4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act could not have been granted.

5. On the application, a report was called from the same Revenue Inspector who had earlier submitted report. He submitted a fresh report on

15.08.2019 where it was now stated that disputed land was not in possession of the petitioner and also confirmed that even previously the petitioner had not been in possession on the said land. In the aforesaid circumstances, another report was sought for by a separate Revenue Inspector who again submitted a report confirming the fact that the petitioner had never been in possession on the disputed land and considering both the reports, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi by means of order dated 11.09.2019 recalled the previous order dated

07.12.2007.

6. Subsequently, a recall application was preferred by the petitioner which was also rejected on 19.09.2019 against which a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue which ash also been rejected on 11.07.2025 and in the aforesaid circumstances the orders dated 11.07.2025,

11.09.2019 and 02.08.2019 have been challenged before this Court.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

8. The only question which requires to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit U/S 122B(4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act in order to granted rights transferable for being granted Sankramaniya Bhumidhar rights over the said land. It had to be demonstrated by the petitioner that he belongs to scheduled caste or schedule tribe category and he is in occupation of any land vested in the gaon sabha land having occupied before 13.05.2007 and also that the said land is not more than

1.26 hectares. In case the petitioner is able to prove the aforesaid, he had a 3 WRIB No. 823 of 2025 right to be declared a Bhumidhar with none transferable rights U/S 195 and accordingly there is no requirement of filing a suit for declaration in this regard.

9. On the application submitted by the petitioner before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, the Revenue Inspector submitted a report confirming the fact that occupation of the petitioner on the said land was prior to 13.05.2007 and considering the aforesaid facts and also that no objection has been filed by means of order dated 07.12.2007, the petitioner was declared to be a bhumidhar over the said land.

10. Subsequently in 2012, on 17.05.2012 respondent No. 3 moved an application for recall stating that bhumidhari rights have wrongly been granted to the petitioner inasmuch as the said land is the ancestral land of respondent No. 3 on which number of trees are standing and also that the graves of his ancestors are existing.

11. On receipt of the application for recall, again reports were sought from the Revenue Inspector and surprisingly the same Revenue Inspector subsequently submitted a report that the petitioner has never been in the occupation of the said land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate further got an spot inspector done and the Tehsidlar, Tiloi submitted his report on

28.03.2019 confirming the fact that petitioner is not in occupation of the said land and nor has been in occupation on the said land.

12. Accordingly, it is in the application for recall that on fresh examination of the facts, the occupation of the petitioner on the disputed land was not found. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate by means of order dated 02.08.2019 recalled his previous order dated 02.12.2007. Subsequently even the application for recall was rejected on 11.09.2019 and the revision has also been rejected on 11.07.2025. This Court finds that the facts with regard to occupation of the petitioner stands confirmed from the order of the Revenue Inspector as well as Tehsildar, Tiloi.

13. Even in the present writ petition, there is no material to indicate that the findings recorded by the authorities below are perverse or contrary to the records. The previous report submitted in 2007 was clearly false and 4 WRIB No. 823 of 2025 fabricated on the basis of which the order dated 07.12.2007 was passed. The same Revenue Inspector this time has given a report against the petitioner and even the said report stands confirmed by the inspection made by the Tehsildar, Tiloi. No material or document has been placed before this Court in the present proceedings to take a contrary view or interference with the finding of the authorities. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground for interference, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

14. This Court further records a strong dissatisfaction with regard to working of Revenue Inspector who has himself given two contrary reports in the the same matter. Let this order be placed before the District Magistrate, Amethi to inquire into the matter and take appropriate action against the Revenue Inspector for submitting false reports September 1, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Chandra Kishore, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to the rights of the petitioner which has been crystallized U/S 122B(4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act which has been confirmed by order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, Amethi by order dated 13.04.2017 by which the petitioner has been declared as Sankramaniya Bhumidhar.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner claims himself to be belonging to scheduled caste under landless person and was in possession of Gata No. 2256, Village Tiloi and moved an application U/S 122B(4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act. On his application, reports were called from the Revenue Inspector who submitted his report on 18.11.2007 stating that the possession of the petitioner on the said land is for more than 10 years and a report was also forwarded by the Tehsildar dated 22.11.2007 with regard to the aforesaid land and considering the aforesaid reports, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed order in favour of petitioner dated 07.12.2007 granting him bhumidhari rights over the said land. 2 WRIB No. 823 of 2025

4. After a period of nearly 5 years, an application for recall was filed by respondent No. 3 stating that the aforesaid land is his ancestral land on which 100 Eucalyptus trees, 3 Jamun trees, 01 Neem tree, 4 Mahua trees and 02 Ber trees were standing and on the said land a graveyard of ancestors are also existing and therefore on such land rights of the petitioner U/S 122B(4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act could not have been granted.

5. On the application, a report was called from the same Revenue Inspector who had earlier submitted report. He submitted a fresh report on

15.08.2019 where it was now stated that disputed land was not in possession of the petitioner and also confirmed that even previously the petitioner had not been in possession on the said land. In the aforesaid circumstances, another report was sought for by a separate Revenue Inspector who again submitted a report confirming the fact that the petitioner had never been in possession on the disputed land and considering both the reports, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi by means of order dated 11.09.2019 recalled the previous order dated

07.12.2007.

6. Subsequently, a recall application was preferred by the petitioner which was also rejected on 19.09.2019 against which a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue which ash also been rejected on 11.07.2025 and in the aforesaid circumstances the orders dated 11.07.2025,

11.09.2019 and 02.08.2019 have been challenged before this Court.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

8. The only question which requires to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit U/S 122B(4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act in order to granted rights transferable for being granted Sankramaniya Bhumidhar rights over the said land. It had to be demonstrated by the petitioner that he belongs to scheduled caste or schedule tribe category and he is in occupation of any land vested in the gaon sabha land having occupied before 13.05.2007 and also that the said land is not more than

1.26 hectares. In case the petitioner is able to prove the aforesaid, he had a 3 WRIB No. 823 of 2025 right to be declared a Bhumidhar with none transferable rights U/S 195 and accordingly there is no requirement of filing a suit for declaration in this regard.

9. On the application submitted by the petitioner before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, the Revenue Inspector submitted a report confirming the fact that occupation of the petitioner on the said land was prior to 13.05.2007 and considering the aforesaid facts and also that no objection has been filed by means of order dated 07.12.2007, the petitioner was declared to be a bhumidhar over the said land.

10. Subsequently in 2012, on 17.05.2012 respondent No. 3 moved an application for recall stating that bhumidhari rights have wrongly been granted to the petitioner inasmuch as the said land is the ancestral land of respondent No. 3 on which number of trees are standing and also that the graves of his ancestors are existing.

11. On receipt of the application for recall, again reports were sought from the Revenue Inspector and surprisingly the same Revenue Inspector subsequently submitted a report that the petitioner has never been in the occupation of the said land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate further got an spot inspector done and the Tehsidlar, Tiloi submitted his report on

28.03.2019 confirming the fact that petitioner is not in occupation of the said land and nor has been in occupation on the said land.

12. Accordingly, it is in the application for recall that on fresh examination of the facts, the occupation of the petitioner on the disputed land was not found. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate by means of order dated 02.08.2019 recalled his previous order dated 02.12.2007. Subsequently even the application for recall was rejected on 11.09.2019 and the revision has also been rejected on 11.07.2025. This Court finds that the facts with regard to occupation of the petitioner stands confirmed from the order of the Revenue Inspector as well as Tehsildar, Tiloi.

13. Even in the present writ petition, there is no material to indicate that the findings recorded by the authorities below are perverse or contrary to the records. The previous report submitted in 2007 was clearly false and 4 WRIB No. 823 of 2025 fabricated on the basis of which the order dated 07.12.2007 was passed. The same Revenue Inspector this time has given a report against the petitioner and even the said report stands confirmed by the inspection made by the Tehsildar, Tiloi. No material or document has been placed before this Court in the present proceedings to take a contrary view or interference with the finding of the authorities. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground for interference, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

14. This Court further records a strong dissatisfaction with regard to working of Revenue Inspector who has himself given two contrary reports in the the same matter. Let this order be placed before the District Magistrate, Amethi to inquire into the matter and take appropriate action against the Revenue Inspector for submitting false reports September 1, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench