AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties.
This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Region Varanasi allowing the Revision under section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1908 by Ram Achal Singh, respondent No. 3.
The facts of the case are that the O.P. No. 3 had filed case No. 16 of 1986 under section 28 of Land Revenue Act for correction of map in respect of Plot No. 258 area 48 decimal situated at Village Vishwanathpur, Pargana Pandrah, District Varanasi which was allowed by the order dated 28.1.1987 passed by the Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer, Varanasi directing to correct the northern line of demarcation of plot No. 258 in the map. The concerned Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal were alleged to have wrongly corrected the map disturbing all the four lines of demarcation and when the O.P. No. 3 on the basis of wrong map tried to get the survey of the land in dispute then the petitioner on coming to know of this fact moved application dated 20.5.2000 before the Chief Revenue Officer for correction of the map according to order dated 28.1.1987 and to take action against the employees who had deliberately and illegally made wrong correction in the map.
On the application dated 20.5.2000 moved by the petitioner, the Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer, Varanasi directed the Ahalamad to produce the original file however the Ahalamad submitted a report dated 20.5.2000 that the original record was sent to the Court of Tehsildar on 3.11.1987 which is not received back till now. The Tehsildar Pindra then directed to produce the original record of the case who also submitted a report dated 18.12.2000 through Revenue Inspector that original record of the case is missing after amendment in revenue record and the map was not corrected according to the order dated 28.1.1987.
The petitioner again moved an application dated 16.1.2001 for cancellation of the map wrongly corrected and for its correction as per order dated 28.1.1987 as pointed out by the Tehsildar report dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Additional Collector on this application the Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer Varanasi again asked for a report from the Tehsildar Pindra for fixing responsibility of the missing original record and to further directed him to trace out the original file. The Tehsildar Pindra by his report dated 9.2.2001 through Revenue Inspector informed the earlier Revenue Inspector and the Lekhpal who had made entry of order dated 28.1.1989 and made correction in the map are responsible for missing of the records and also that the correction made in map is not in accordance with the order aforesaid.
The Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer after considering the report of Tehsildar dated 9.2.2001 then directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate Pindra vide his order dated 13.2.2001 to stay the effect of wrong correction and to take administrative action against the concernedRevenue Inspector and Lekhpal against which O.P. No. 3 had filed a revision under section 219 of the Land Revenue Act.
The petitioner had filed his objection dated 7.8.2001 against the revision filed by O.P. No. 3 taking a ground amongst others that the revision of the O.P. No.3 is not maintainable since it has been filed against an interlocutory order which is a just and proper but the Additional Commissioner, O.P. No. 1, without considering the objection of the petitioner allowed the revision of the O.P. No. 3 illegally vide his order dated 13.12.2001.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is not revisable and in any case respondent No. 3 was not aggrieved by the order for correction of the records as the then Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal had wrongly corrected the map by giving undue advantage to the respondent and thereafter misplaced the original record. Loss of record of the Court is a serious misconduct and the erring officials were stayed due to which they have remained in service without being punished if they were found guilty.
The order dated 13.12.2001 of the Additional Commissioner/Chief Revenue Officer, Varanasi was an interlocutory order by which recording of false entry in the map has been stayed for want of original record against which the revision of the O.P. No. 3 was not maintainable but the O.P. No. 1 without considering this aspect of matter, passed the impugned order illegally having no jurisdiction over the matter.
It appears that by order dated 28.1.1987 only the northern side of map of Plot No. 258 was directed to be corrected but the then concerned Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal had wrongly corrected three sides of the map amending the western and eastern line of boundary also disturbing the chak of the petitioner and apparently misplaced the original record of the case to avoid further complications. The wrong correction in the map which is apparent on the face of record, as such its execution was stayed for want of original record.
It also appears that the original record of case No. 61/1986 was summoned on the application of the petitioner but was not produced, instead the Tehsildar submitted a report to the effect that original record was missing and that map had wrongly been got corrected by the then Revenue Inspector and the Lekhpal and they had also misplaced the original record. The A.D.M./C.R.O., Varanasi, stayed the recording of false entry in the map for want of original records by order dated 13.2.2001 and also directed that administrative action against the concerned Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal be taken.
The revision filed by Ram Achal Singh, respondent No. 3, against the order dated 13.2.2001 which has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Region, Varanasi, respondent No. 1, by which he has stayed the correction as well as taking of the administrative action against the then Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal who made incorrect entries in the map giving undue advantage to respondent No. 3, and had misplaced the original records, it is this order dated 13.2.2001 by which the proceedings against the Revenue Inspector as well as Lekhpal have been ordered that this petition has been filed.
In the circumstances that admittedly the original records have been misplaced, the order dated 13.12.2001 is impugned could not have been passed in absence of the original records.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed.
As loss of record of Court is a very serious matter, it is directed that the then Revenue Inspector and the Lekhpal be proceeded against forthwith in accordance with law and the proceedings shall be brought to its logical conclusion within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If the respondent No. 3. appears to be in collusion with the then Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal, he may also be proceeded against him in accordance with law.
It is also directed that the records be reconstructed in the meantime and the appropriate orders may be passed on the application for correction of the records moved by the petitioner accordingly within a period of four months.
No order as to costs.