Shyam Sundar Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent, Shri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Shir S.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner-Ist, Azamgarh Region Azamgarh.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in accordance with the proposal dated 06.06.2005 plot No. 153 was found to be recorded as Banjar land having an area of 0.21 Hect. and an old path way existed there upon, hence the recommendation was for entering it, as such, in the revenue record. The petitioner appears to have filed restoration application before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was allowed by the order dated 18.05.2008 on the ground that the proposal and its approval dated 06.05.2008/09.05.2008 respectively were violative of principles of natural justice. The State and respondent No. 4 filed a revision No. 168/229/A u/s 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the revisional court has allowed the revision by its judgment and order dated 17.08.2010, set-aside the order dated 18.05.2009 of the Sub Divisional Officer rejected the restoration application of the petitioner and has allowed the revision.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the proposal dated 06.05.2005 and its approval by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 09.05.2005 clearly indicates that the proposal related to plot No. 153 Kha/0.350 Hect. whereas the approval was for plot No. 153. According to the petitioner if the recommendation was for plot No. 153 Kha then the approval also ought to have been for plot No. 153Kha but by granting approval for plot No. 153, the petitioner has been adversely affected.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the land in question was recorded as Banjar having an area of .21 Hect. and was used as Rasta. By the recommendation and the approval the said Banjar land has now been directed to be entered as Rasta in the revenue record and therefore, the petitioner can have no grievance against such approval, otherwise it appears that the petitioner wants to grab the public land by filing the restoration application.

Having considering the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record the revisional court while considering the submissions made by the parties has clearly recorded that the proposal of the Revenue Inspector- Tehsildar related to plot No. 153 Kha in Village Murkhuda, which was having an area of 0.350 Hect. and 0.21 Hect. was recorded as Banjar.

Having recorded the aforesaid facts the revisional court appears to have approved the proposal and approval granted by the Sub Divisional Officer. The dispute raised by the petitioner is in a very small campus which is if the approval was for plot No. 153 Kha then Rasta can not be recorded over plot No. 153.

From the operative portion of the revisional order the revisional court has not clarified the relief, which has been gratned to the revisionist. The petitioner is conceding that plot No. 153 Kha, 0.21 Hect is Banjar and can be entered as Rasta hence such proposal and approval ought to have been clearly recorded by the revisional court.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances it would be appropriate that the petitioner should file an appropriate application alongwith certified copy of this order in the revision No. 168/229/A (State and Ors. v. Sub Divisional Officer and others) seeking clarification from the revisional court regarding the entry of Rasta on Banjar land alleged to be on plot No. 153 Kha and not on plot No. 153. In case such an application is made as provided above within one month from today, the Additional Commissioner- 1st Azamgarh Region Azamgarh should consider such application after giving opportunity to all the concerned parties and pass orders in accordance with law preferably within three months thereafter.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

No order as to costs.