AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 1 & 2 to regularize their possession in relation to Khata Khatoni No. 07 Khasra No. 54/2B of Village Bhawanipur, Har Singh as per the Government Order dated 28.09.2006. He contends that he is entitled for conversion/regularization of the property, and in support of which, he has placed on record, Khatoni pertaining to 1385 to 1390 fasli, wherein, the land in question is recorded in Shreni 6(2) as road, railway marg, building etc.
As per entry, which has been made in column 7 to 12 of the said khatoni, there is an order mentioned that the petitioner may be directed to be recorded in Shreni 4, but unfortunately, it does not refer to, that under whose authority and in which case the order was passed by the competent authority for recording the name in Shreni 4. For the purposes of making the entries in the khatoni, particularly, in column 7 to 12, which records the conversion, following conditions are mandatorily required to be followed, and the conditions enshrined therein are quoted hereunder:
"परिवर्तन सम्बन्धी आज्ञा या उसका सारांश तथा दिनांक सहित आज्ञा देने वाले अधिकारी का पद जो रजिस्ट्रार कानूनगो अथवा विवाद सहित उत्तराधिकारी की दशा में पर्वेक्षक कानूनगो द्वारा प्रभावित हो।"
The petitioners in continuance of his claim for his regularization, yet again places reliance of another khatoni in relation to the land in question, which pertains to 1421 to 1426 fasli recording them in Shreni 4 after the aforesaid conversion, which the petitioners claim to have been granted to them. This Khatoni too in its column 7 to 12, which contemplates of recording of the case number and the order passed by the competent authority for recording the converted entry is blank, it show no particulars at all of any order or case in which order has been passed for recording the name.
On scrutiny of the order, which has been annexed by the petitioners, in fact it happens to be a report submitted on 09.07.2018, a reference to the entry made in column 8 of the said report would be necessary for the purposes to determine the right of the petitioners to claim for regularization. As per column 8 yet again it records that the land in question has been taken over by the National Highway Authority under the National Highway Authority Act of 1956 for the construction/widening of NH 57. The entry 8 of the said report is quoted hereunder:
क्या उक्त भूमि सार्वजनिक हित का अन्य विभाग को तो नहीं है।
प्रश्नगत भूमि का अधिग्रहण NH 87/109 में किया जा चुका है, जिस कारण से प्रश्नगत भूमि सार्वजनिक प्रयोग की है।
The another aspect, which has not been pleaded, which should have been is by the petitioners, could be reflected from the noting, which has been recorded in the report of 09.07.2018, wherein, the following observations has been made:
"1387 फ0 से श्रेणी-4 में गौरी दत्त पुत्र किशनचन्द्र निवासी ग्राम के नाम दर्ज माल कागजात के खातेदार गौरीदत्त की मृत्यु दिनांक 16.12.2001 को हो चुकी है जिसके मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्र कि छाया प्रति संलग्न है पत्रावली मृतक खातेदार गौरीदत्त के वारिसानु के पक्ष में तैयार की गई है। जिनके द्वारा वर्ष 2007 में प्रश्नगत भूमि को विनितीकरण कराए जाने बाबत् 3840 रूपया चालान के माध्यम से जमा कराये गए हैं। चालान की छायाप्रति संलग्न है विनियमितीकरण की जाने वाली भूमि राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग अधिनियम 1950 के अन्तर्गत राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग संख्या 87 नया नं0 109 के निर्माण चैड़ा करने/4 लेन बनाए आदि हेतु अधिकरण कर ली गई है जिसकी अधिसूचना 02 जुलाई 2013 को जारी की जा चुकी है प्रश्नगत भूमि पर निर्मित अवधि मुआवजा कब्जेदार बालादत्त भट्ट आदि के पक्ष में समय प्राधिकारी/विशेष भूमि अध्यापित अधिकारी नैनीताल द्वाराजारी किया जा चुका है जिसकी छाया प्रति पत्रावली में संलग्न है।
इस प्रकार उपरोक्त ग्राम-भवानीपुर हर सिंह के खाता संख्या- 07 मध्य खसरा संख्या 54/2 व रकबा 0.032 है0 भूमि जिसका कि अधिग्रहण राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग संख्या 87 के लिए किया जा चुका है।
नियमानुसार विनितीकरण पत्रावली आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु प्रेषित नियमानुसार आवेदक पात्रता की श्रेणी में नहीं आता है।"
The revenue inspector and the revenue authorities who have initiated the enquiry and submitted the said report had in fact declined that the petitioners cannot be granted regularization over the land for the reason that the said land has already been taken over for the National Highway Authority for widening of NH 87 new no. NH-109 and the most surprising part of it is that it observes that the petitioner has received the compensation in relation to it. After this report of 09.07.2018, the petitioner has filed himself this present writ petition on 06.12.2018.
A person who has already received a compensation, and particularly, when the land has already been taken over by the Central Government under the Act for widening of the National Highway NH 87 new no. NH-109, and particularly, when the compensation has already been received, no regularization as claimed by the petitioner under the Government Order dated 28.09.2006 could be granted to the petitioners as prayed for in the writ petition.
Consequently, this writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
All pending applications stand disposed of.