Allahabad HC in Nuruddeen Vs. Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda & Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. - 21

Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 525 of 2013

Petitioner :- Nuruddeen
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambrish Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
 

Even though petitioner has got absolutely no right to challenge the order dt. 30.6.1986 passed in Reference No. 113 (Sant Ram Vs. Gram Sabha) by D.C.C. Gonda, after 27 years, however, it is quite evident that through order dated 30.6.1986 the then D.D.C., Gonda gifted the Gaon Sabha property to respondent no. 3 Sri Sant Ram. It is experience of the court that during consolidation gaon Sabha / State property is openly looted and liberally donated by consolidation authorities to private persons. In this regard reference may be made to para 22 to 27 of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow Vs. Lajja Ram, 2012, (3) AWC 2226, which are as follows: 

"The provision of presumption is provided under Section 114 of Evidence Act, which contains some illustrations also. The said section along with illustrations (e) & (f) is quoted below: 

"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
 

The Court may presume-
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular case;"
 

If the presumption of entry in favour of plaintiff's father for four or seven years is to be presumed then presumption of correctness of discontinuance of entry for 40 years will also have to be drawn.
 

Life of law has not been logic, it has been experience (O.W. Holmes). This principle applies with greater force on presumptions and human conduct. I have heard and decided hundreds of matters pertaining to agricultural land and my experience is that Gaon Sabha property has been looted by unscrupulous persons on a very large scale by manipulation in the revenue records and forging of orders particularly of consolidation courts. The modus operendi is that a very old entry or copy of order is produced like a rabbit from the hat of a magician and its resumption or recording is sought. (underlining supplied)
 

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011, Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, in Para-20 observed as follows:
"20. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be compared with the original revenue record showing the land as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices."
 

In Dina Nath Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (108) R.D. 321, I held that not making any efforts for getting the name of the petitioner entered in the revenue records on the basis of alleged patta by Gaon Sabha for 29 years proved that no patta was executed. I issued directions to all the Collectors to reopen all such cases where names of private persons were entered in the revenue records over Gaon Sabha land. Matter was carried to the Supreme Court in the form of S.L.P. (Civil) C.C.4398 of 2010 Dina Nath Vs. State. The Supreme Court decided the matter on 29.03.2010 and quoted almost my entire judgment in inverted commas and approved the same.
 

Accordingly, it is held that whenever a person comes along with the case that Gaon Sabha land was allotted to him or some order was passed by any Court in his favour declaring his right over Gaon Sabha land or some revenue entry was in his favour long before but during last several years his name is not recorded in the revenue records then an irrebuttable presumption amounting to almost conclusive proof must be drawn to the effect that allotment order or entry is forged."

The matter in the instant case relates to Gata No. 940/1( new no. 590/812) area 0.06 acre and plot no. 1367M (new no. 66/14) area 0.15 acre, which were entered as banjar and Nai parti in the revenue records. In the impugned order it is mentioned that Pradhan supported the respondent no. 3 Gaon Sabha property is not personal property of Pradhan.
 

Accordingly, Collector Gonda is directed to immediately issue notice to respondent no. 3 Sant Ram S/O Sita Ram, R/O Village - Pipra Adai, Pargana - Boorha Payar, Tehsil - Mankapur, District - Gonda and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with the above authorities and if decision is taken in favour of the Gaon Sabha, respondent no. 3 must be forthwith evicted and damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per year shall also be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue and the property shall be entered as Gaon Sabha property. 

The entire exercise must positively be concluded within three months from today, failing which, court will take a serious view of the matter. If the exercise is not completed within three months, petitioner may file recall application in this case. It is further held that petitioner has also got absolutely no concern with the property in dispute.
 

Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Vinay Bhusan, learned Additional C.S.C.
Order Date :- 4.9.2013
S. Kumar

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2783645