# Akbar & Anr v. Add. Commissioner Judicial & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 601
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-07
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1004048 of 2002
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akbar-anr-v-add-commissioner-judicial-ors-53612
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Anand
Dubey,
Brijesh
Kumar
Mishra,
R.N.
Gupta,
Rajendra
Singh
Chauhan

Issue for consideration
Legality
of
impugned
orders
are
passed
rejecting the lease granted to the Petitioners.

Headnotes
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-sec.198-Respondent
moved application for cancellation of patta of
Petitioner-rejected-revision-allowed-impugned
order- impugned order records that lower court
has not come to the conclusion on the basis of
evidence -CH form recorded the disputed
numbers which are old numbers 1090, 1091,
1092 and the respondent Nos.3 to 7 have been
declared to be Seechdar of the disputed
numbers- mutation could not take place,
therefore, at the time of lease, the land was
shown as Usal- if under the public document- it
is certified that there are some orders of the
Consolidation Officer -it is seen to be correct
and genuine-till by producing documentary
evidence- it is not shown to be illegal or forgedthe proceeding for cancellation of lease was
accepted and the lease granted to the petitioner
was cancelled-impugned order legal. W.P.
dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. ActList of Keywords

Appearance of parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Farooq Ahmad
Counsel
for
Respondent
:-
C.S.C.,Anand
Dubey,Brijesh
Kumar
Mishra,R.N.
Gupta,Rajendra Singh Chauhan

## Text

7 All. Akbar & Anr. Vs. Add. Commissioner Judicial & Ors.
601
and 11.10.2002 are illegal and arbitrary and
are set aside. The petition stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 601
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1004048 of 2002

Akbar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Add. Commissioner Judicial & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Farooq Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Anand
Dubey,
Brijesh
Kumar
Mishra,
R.N.
Gupta,
Rajendra
Singh
Chauhan

Issue for consideration
Legality
of
impugned
orders
are
passed
rejecting the lease granted to the Petitioners.

Headnotes
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-sec.198-Respondent
moved application for cancellation of patta of
Petitioner-rejected-revision-allowed-impugned
order- impugned order records that lower court
has not come to the conclusion on the basis of
evidence -CH form recorded the disputed
numbers which are old numbers 1090, 1091,
1092 and the respondent Nos.3 to 7 have been
declared to be Seechdar of the disputed
numbers- mutation could not take place,
therefore, at the time of lease, the land was
shown as Usal- if under the public document- it
is certified that there are some orders of the
Consolidation Officer -it is seen to be correct
and genuine-till by producing documentary
evidence- it is not shown to be illegal or forgedthe proceeding for cancellation of lease was
accepted and the lease granted to the petitioner
was cancelled-impugned order legal. W.P.
dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. ActList of Keywords

Appearance of parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Farooq Ahmad
Counsel
for
Respondent
:-
C.S.C.,Anand
Dubey,Brijesh
Kumar
Mishra,R.N.
Gupta,Rajendra Singh Chauhan

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Farooq Ahmad, learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Anand
Dubey,
learned
counsel
for
the
private
respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition, the
petitioner is challenging the order dated
28.10.2002
passed
by
respondent
No.1
contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the
land management committee of Gaon Sabha
Daulatyarpur passed a resolution for allotting
land of gaon sabha to landless persons including
the petitioners on 11.06.1989. The Sub
Divisional Officer (SDO), Bilgram, District
Hardoi approved the resolution on 11.06.1989
of the land management committee of the gaon
sabha.
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 and father of
respondent Nos.3 & 4 moved application under
Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for
cancellation of patta of the petitioners only in
respect of plot No.813 area 0.594 hectare and
plot No.814 area 0.367 hectare on the basis of
forged
order
dated
25.10.1969
of
the
Consolidation Officer. Later on, same was
transferred before the court of Additional
Collector, Hardoi.

5. The petitioners filed objection in the
court of Additional Collector, Hardoi. The
petitioners and their witnesses filed their
affidavits in respect of their cases before the
trial court.

6. The Additional Collector, rejected the
application under Section 198(4) of UPZA &
LR Act of respondent Nos.3 to 7 after
considering the entire material on record.
Respondent Nos.3 to 7 filed revision before
respondent No.1 under Section 333-A of UPZA
& LR Act. Respondent No.1 allowed the
revision of respondent Nos.3 to 7, therefore, the
present writ petition has been filed challenging
the order of Additional Commissioner dated
28.10.2002.

7. Submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the entries shown by the
document issued by the Consolidation Officer is
forged and fabricated, therefore, the finding
returned without summoning the record of
revisional court is wholly erroneous and
perverse in nature.

8. Along with supplementary affidavit,
learned counsel for the petitioners has annexed
copy of application moved by his Advocate on
03.05.2024 to the effect that Gaon Sabha
Daulatyarpur, Pargana Mallawa, Tehsil Bilgram
related misilband register be permitted to see,
whereon vide order dated 20.05.2024 it was
informed that the said register is not available in
the office.

9. His next submission is that the
document,
which
was
produced
by
the
Tehsildar is alleged to have been passed in
misuse of power under Rule 115(C) and invited
attention on Rule 115 (C) of the Rules framed
under the Act and submitted that the Tehsildar
does not have power to make entries in the
name of private parties.

10. He also invited attention of this Court
to annexure SA-2, which is an application dated
15.07.2024 for perusal of entries made in
original suit No.225/119 under Section 115 (C)
dated 30.10.1956, wherein return has been
made on 15.07.2024 that the related record does
not have been found in the office.

11. On the other hand, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel invited attention of this
Court on page 17 of the record of writ petition,
wherein he placed reliance on last paragraph of
page 16 and said that on perusal of order dated
25.10.1969, which is in regard to title is derived
that the order is final and due to some reason,
no mutation could take place.

12. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the
petitioners
submitted
that the
Additional
Commissioner merely relying on a forged
document has proceeded to record finding and
in this regard relevant statement of fact has
been given in paragraph 19 of the writ petition,
which has not been denied by filing counter
affidavit.

13.
Learned
counsel
for
private
respondents submitted that the order of
Additional Commissioner passed in the revision
does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality
and is just and valid.

14. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.

15. On perusal of CH form, which is
placed on record, disputed numbers which are
old numbers 1090, 1091, 1092 and 1093, which
are
numbers
before
the
consolidation
operations, the Consolidation Officer passed an
order on 25.10.1969 in regard to the title over
the land in dispute. On its perusal, it is certified
that the respondent Nos.3 to 7 have been
7 All. Vishwanath Umar Vaisya & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner Allahabad & Ors.
603
declared to be Seechdar of the disputed
numbers, but due to some reason or otherwise,
the mutation could not take place, therefore, at
the time of lease, the land was shown as Usal. It
is settled principle of law that if under the
public document, it is certified that there are
some orders of the Consolidation Officer then it
is seen to be correct and genuine till by
producing documentary evidence, it is not
shown to be illegal or forged.

16. On the record, there is no material to
establish that certified copies produced of the
CH form are not genuine, therefore, the
determination of the lower court that due to non
mutation of land, it comes under the suspicious
category, therefore, as per the opinion of the
lower court, due to non mutation of land, it
comes under the suspicious category and is not
legally valid document is an erroneous finding
and cannot be accepted in the eyes of law.

17. On the other hand, the respondents, by
relying on the document, which is judgment of
the Consolidation Officer dated 25.10.1969 to
be genuine document, therefore, it is accepted
as relevant evidence. The petitioner claimed
that
to
save
himself
from
the
ceiling
proceeding, the mutation was not done by the
respondent Nos.3 to 7 but no evidence was
produced by the petitioner. The revisional court
on the basis of no evidence and certificate
produced before the lower court, came to the
conclusion that the reasons assigned are not
tenable in law. The lower court has not come to
the conclusion on the basis of evidence and on
the said basis, the proceeding for cancellation of
lease was accepted and the lease granted to the
petitioner was cancelled. The finding recorded
by the revisional court does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality, therefore, cannot be
interfered by this Court.

18. The petitioner has not challenged the
finding recorded by the revisional court that the
order of the Consolidation Officer is genuine in
nature and cannot be ignored. The respondents
have filed supplementary affidavit, enclosing
the Goswara Register, wherein property has
been shown in the name of the respondents. The
certified copy produced by the learned counsel
for the respondents is taken on record alongwith
the
photocopy
enclosed
alongwith
the
supplementary affidavit.

19. In view of the reasons recorded above,
the finding returned by the revisional court does
not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is
just and valid, therefore, this Court declines to
interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the
revisional court in exercise of discretionary
power under Article 226 of Constitution of
India.

20. The writ petition is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 603
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1004469 of 2005

Vishwanath Umar Vaisya & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Additional Commissioner Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Girish Chandra Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sampurnanand

Issue for consideration

Headnotes
Land Revenue Act-Lekhpal added the name of
Nagar Palika in reference to the plots without
any order of any competent authority-plots and
trees and tank were initially recorded under the
possession
of
Ganeshi
Deen
(Petitioner's