# Anjani v. Board Of Revenue Lucknow & Anr. 864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 863
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-02-17
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anjani-v-board-of-revenue-lucknow-anr-864-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-43615
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil law U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 33/39 - Proceedings - Khasra - Non Z.A. land - Entry
made by Lekhpal - Para A-60 - Land Record Manual - Annual register - Khatauni - Field book -
Correction of mistakes - Section 28 - Power of Collector - Section 227 - Board of Revenue -
Revision allowed - Proceedings under Section 33/39 not maintainable - Writ petition dismissed.

The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and
seeks quashing of the order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue allowing a revision
filed by the respondents.(Para-2)

The facts of the case briefly stated are that an entry was made by the Lekhpal in the khasra of non
Z.A. land situated in Mauja Sahatwar Urf mahatpal, Pargana Khareed, Tehsil Bansdeeh, District Ballia.
The petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 33/39 for expunging this entry alleging that the
name of Vishwanath had wrongly been recorded under Class 15(2) in the khasra.(Para-3)

It appears that the respondent put in appearance but subsequently absented himself. The Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh by his order dated 11.05.2000, directed that the entry made in the
khasra be expunged. (Para-4)

The contesting respondent thereafter filed a restoration application which was rejected on the ground
that since he had appeared in the proceedings initially but, subsequently absented himself, the
restoration application was not maintainable.(Para-5)

Against the order rejecting the restoration application, the respondent preferred a revision. This
revision has been allowed by the impugned order.(Para-6)

Held:(Paras 18-23)

It is clear from the record of the writ petition that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under
Section 33/39, were for correction of an entry made in the khasra prepared in the form provided in
Para A-60 of the Land Record Manual. The correction sought by the petitioner could have been sought
by means of proceedings under Section 28 of the Act.

The procedure prescribed for dealing with applications under Section 28, viz-a-viz application under
Section 33/39 of the Act, is materially different. This view is in consonance with the judgment in the
case of Raj Kumar Vs. Bhagwat Singh, 1956 RD 434. This is a decision by a Full Bench of the Board of
Revenue and it has held that the khasra can be corrected in proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act by the Collector. Proceedings under Section 33 and 39 of this Act are for corrections
in the annual registers or the khatauni alone and such correction can b

## Text

3 All. Anjani Vs Board Of Revenue Lucknow & Anr.
863
Kumar and wearing the dress of Indian Army and informed the lady that he has come from army
headquarter. The accused-applicant any how deceived the lady and took her to the Branch-Chhata
of State Bank of India and got the said amount of Rs.10 lacs withdrawn under the pretext of
preparation of fixed deposit in favour of children of the lady from Bukhran Gramin Bank. After
getting the said amount, the accused-applicant placed it into his bag and thereafter he flew away.
After registration of F.I.R. on 5.4.2013 at 16.30 O'clock, the investigation had commenced and
during the course of investigation it came into picture that the accused-applicant has been lodged in
jail in connection with some another case as Case No.259 of 2012 arising out of Case crime
No.356 of 2008, pending before the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-III, Agra and as such the
Investigating Officer obtained warrantB for accused-applicant in respect of present criminal case in
question and thereafter the accused-applicant was taken into custody in the present case. Learned
A.G.A. has further submitted that above named lady Smt. Dharmwati and other witnesses have
also identified the accused-applicant and the Investigating Officer, after obtaining police custody
remand of the accused-applicant, had recovered the army dress, the belt, cap, shoes etc. as well as
Rs.1,64,000/- on the pointing out of the accused-applicant, who further disclosed that apart from
said recovered amount he spent Rs.4,10,000/- out of total amount of Rs.10 lacs for purchase of
second hand car and the motorcycle for Rs.24,000/-. The accused-applicant also made available an
amount of Rs.103000/- by withdrawing the same from the bank account of H.D.F.C. Bank,
NOIDA disclosing that this amount is a part of said cheated amount of Rs.10 lacs. Learned A.G.A.
has further submitted that the Investigating Officer prepared the memo of recovery of above noted
amounts and articles in accordance with law. Contention is that the offence committed by the
accused-applicant is not only a case of cheating and criminal breach of trust but is also a case in
which the offence has been committed against the family of a martyr of Indian Army who sacrified
his life for the safety and security of our nation, and as such, the act of accused-applicant is most
egregious in nature and deserves to be dealt with strictly.

6. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall
circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for
bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.

7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the
disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate
merits of the case.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABD 17.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ-B No.- 6645 of 2016

Anjani ...Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue Lucknow & Anr. ...Respondents
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mrigraj Singh

Civil law U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 33/39 - Proceedings - Khasra - Non Z.A. land - Entry
made by Lekhpal - Para A-60 - Land Record Manual - Annual register - Khatauni - Field book -
Correction of mistakes - Section 28 - Power of Collector - Section 227 - Board of Revenue -
Revision allowed - Proceedings under Section 33/39 not maintainable - Writ petition dismissed.

The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and
seeks quashing of the order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue allowing a revision
filed by the respondents.(Para-2)

The facts of the case briefly stated are that an entry was made by the Lekhpal in the khasra of non
Z.A. land situated in Mauja Sahatwar Urf mahatpal, Pargana Khareed, Tehsil Bansdeeh, District Ballia.
The petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 33/39 for expunging this entry alleging that the
name of Vishwanath had wrongly been recorded under Class 15(2) in the khasra.(Para-3)

It appears that the respondent put in appearance but subsequently absented himself. The Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh by his order dated 11.05.2000, directed that the entry made in the
khasra be expunged. (Para-4)

The contesting respondent thereafter filed a restoration application which was rejected on the ground
that since he had appeared in the proceedings initially but, subsequently absented himself, the
restoration application was not maintainable.(Para-5)

Against the order rejecting the restoration application, the respondent preferred a revision. This
revision has been allowed by the impugned order.(Para-6)

Held:(Paras 18-23)

It is clear from the record of the writ petition that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under
Section 33/39, were for correction of an entry made in the khasra prepared in the form provided in
Para A-60 of the Land Record Manual. The correction sought by the petitioner could have been sought
by means of proceedings under Section 28 of the Act.

The procedure prescribed for dealing with applications under Section 28, viz-a-viz application under
Section 33/39 of the Act, is materially different. This view is in consonance with the judgment in the
case of Raj Kumar Vs. Bhagwat Singh, 1956 RD 434. This is a decision by a Full Bench of the Board of
Revenue and it has held that the khasra can be corrected in proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act by the Collector. Proceedings under Section 33 and 39 of this Act are for corrections
in the annual registers or the khatauni alone and such correction can be made by the Collector or the
Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division (SDO) to whom the power has been delegated by
Section 227 of the Act. In my opinion this decision lays down the correct law.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it must necessarily be held that the proceedings under Section
33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, initiated by the petitioner, were clearly not maintainable.
3 All. Anjani Vs Board Of Revenue Lucknow & Anr.
865
It therefore, follows that the Board of Revenue, has rightly restored the entry and directed the parties
to seek their remedy under the relevant sections of law.

The order therefore, calls for no interference.

 Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.

Case Law discussed:

Raj Kumar Vs. Bhagwat Singh, 1956 RD 434 - para 19

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. )

1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, for the
contesting respondent no.2.

2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act and seeks quashing of the order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the Board of
Revenue allowing a revision filed by the respondents.

3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that an entry was made by the Lekhpal in the
khasra of non Z.A. land situated in Mauja Sahatwar Urf mahatpal, Pargana Khareed, Tehsil
Bansdeeh, District Ballia. The petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 33/39 for
expunging this entry alleging that the name of Vishwanath had wrongly been recorded under
Class 15(2) in the khasra.

4. It appears that the respondent put in appearance but subsequently absented himself.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh by his order dated 11.05.2000, directed that the
entry made in the khasra be expunged.

5. The contesting respondent thereafter filed a restoration application which was
rejected on the ground that since he had appeared in the proceedings initially but,
subsequently absented himself, the restoration application was not maintainable.

6. Against the order rejecting the restoration application, the respondent preferred a
revision. This revision has been allowed by the impugned order.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the main grievance of the
respondent was that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, was ex-parte. Under
the circumstances, the revisional Court, should have remanded the matter back for passing a
fresh order after hearing the parties. He has on the contrary terminated the proceedings after
setting aside the order passed in favour of the petitioner, thereby maintaining the entry made
in favour of the respondent in the khasra.

8. Apart from lengthy submissions made by learned counsel for the parties on the
merits on their respective claims, the primary issue, which in my considered opinion, arises
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for adjudication is as to whether any entry made in the khasra in accordance with the
provisions contained in Para A-60 of the Land Record Manual, is liable to be corrected by
means of the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

9. In this context, it would be relevant to note the relevant provisions of the Act,
namely Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which are quoted herein above.

"33. The annual registers.- (1) The Collector shall maintain the record of rights
and for that purpose shall annually or at such longer intervals as the State Government may
prescribe, cause to be prepared an amended register mentioned in Section 32.

The register so prepared shall be called annual registered.

(2) The Collector shall cause to be recorded in the annual register-

(a) all successions and transfers in accordance with the provisions ofSection 35; or

(b) other changes that may take place in respect of any land; and shallalso correct all
errors and omissions in accordance with the provisions of Section 39:

Provided that the power to record a change under clause (b) shall not be construed to
include the power to decide a dispute involving any question of title.

(3) No such change or transaction shall be recorded without the order ofthe Collector or
as hereinafter provided, of the Tehsildar or the Kanungo.

(4) The Collector shall cause to be prepared and supplied to every personrecorded as
bhumidhar, wither with or without transferable rights, assami or Government Lessee a
Kisan Bahi (Pass Book) which shall contain-

(a) such extract from the annual register prepared under sub-section (1) relating to all
holdings of which he is so recorded (either solely or jointly with others);

(b) details of grants sanctioned to him; and

(c) such other particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that in the case of joint holdings it shall be sufficient for the purpose of
this sub-section of Kisan Bahi (Pass Book) is supplied to such one or more of the recorded
co-sharers as may be prescribed.

(4A) The Kisan Bahi (Pass Book) referred in in sub-section (4) shall be prepared
in such manner and on payment of such fee, which shall be realisable as arrears of land
revenue, as may be prescribed.
3 All. Anjani Vs Board Of Revenue Lucknow & Anr.
867
(5) Every such person shall be entitled, without payment of any extra fee,to et any
amendment made in the annual register under sub-section (2) incorporated in his Kisan
Bahi (Pass Book).

(6) The State Government may make rules to carry out the purpose of thissection,
including, in particular, rules, prescribing the mode of reception in evidence,and of proof in
judicial proceedings, of entries in the Kisan Bahi (Pass Book), and the mode of its revision
and authentication up-todate and for issuing of duplicate copies thereof, and the fees, if any,
to be charged for any of the said purpose.

(7) In this section, 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made by theState Government.

(8) Nothing in sub-sections (4) to (7) shall apply in relation to any areawhich is either
under consolidation operations or under record operations.

39. Correction of mistakes in the annual register.-(1) An application for correction of
any error or omission in the annual register shall be made to the Tehsildar.

(2) On receiving an application under sub-section (1) or any error oromission in the
annual register coming to his knowledge,the Tehsildar shall make such inquiry as appears
necessary and then refer the case to the Collector, who shall dispose if of, after deciding the
dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 40.

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to empower the Collector to
decide a dispute involving any question of title.

(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) sand (2) shall prevail,notwithstanding anything
contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947."

10. A bare reading of the provisions quoted above, makes it clear that the aforesaid
sections 33 and 39 of the Act, can be invoked for correcting errors in the Annual Register.

11. The khasra of a non Z.A. area, is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the
Chapter 5 of the U.P. Land Record Manual.

12. Para 60 of the aforesaid Chapter provides that the khasra is a field book in which
the Lekhpal, shall enter from time to time, all changes in boundaries and facts required for
the preparation of the khatauni. It is to be prepared in P.A. form 3, which is also given in the
Land Record Manual itself.

13. The khatauni in a non Z.A. area, is prepared in accordance with the provisions
contained in Chapter VIII of the U.P. Land Record Manual.
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Chapter III (C) thereof deals with annual registers. Section 33 empowers the
Collector to maintain the record of rights, which may be prepared annually or at such
intervals at the State Government may provide.

15. The question therefore, is as to whether a field book namely the khasra prepared
under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, can be termed an Annual Register specified
under Section 33 of the Act. The answer is a categorical no.

16. The Annual Register referred to under Section 33 of the Act, necessarily means the
khatauni prepared by the revenue authorities, which is the record of rights. The provisions of
Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, can be invoked for corrections in the khatauni.
No correction in the khasra can be made, invoking Section 33/39 of the Act, which is the
field book. Any corrections initiated in the field book prepared under Section 28 of the Act,
can be corrected only through proceedings under Section 28 of the Act itself. Under Section
28, the power to order corrections vests in the Collector.

17. The power to order corrections in the Annual Register is with the Collector upon a
report having been made by the Tehsildar. However, even the Sub-Divisional Officer can
exercise this power in view of Section 227 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

18. It is clear from the record of the writ petition that the proceedings initiated by the
petitioner under Section 33/39, were for correction of an entry made in the khasra prepared
in the form provided in Para A-60 of the Land Record Manual. The correction sought by the
petitioner could have been sought by means of proceedings under Section 28 of the Act.

19. The procedure prescribed for dealing with applications under Section 28, viz-a-viz
application under Section 33/39 of the Act, is materially different. This view is in
consonance with the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Bhagwat Singh, 1956 RD
434. This is a decision by a Full Bench of the Board of Revenue and it has held that the
khasra can be corrected in proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act by
the Collector. Proceedings under Section 33 and 39 of this Act are for corrections in the
annual registers or the khatauni alone and such correction can be made by the Collector or
the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division (SDO) to whom the power has been
delegated by Section 227 of the Act. In my opinion this decision lays down the correct law.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it must necessarily be held that the proceedings
under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, initiated by the petitioner, were clearly
not maintainable.

21. It therefore, follows that the Board of Revenue, has rightly restored the entry and
directed the parties to seek their remedy under the relevant sections of law.

22. The order therefore, calls for no interference.

23. Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.
3 All. M/S Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow & Ors.
869
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABD 16.12.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Writ B No.- 29169 Of 2006

M/S Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow & Ors . ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Bidhan Chandra Rai, A.N. Bhargava,G L Chaudhary,G.C.Pant,Zafeer Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., P.C. Nagar,Prem Chandra

Civil law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 161 - Exchange of land
- Suo motu revision - Board of Revenue - Section 219 - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 -
Jurisdiction - Board of Revenue, Lucknow - Board of Revenue, Allahabad - Section 333 - Board
Resolution dated 9.10.1990 - Order without jurisdiction - Nullity - Writ of certiorari - Order
quashed.

Through this writ petition prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated
3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of
2005-06. (Para-2)

The aforesaid revision has been maintained with respect to six cases, i.e. 1. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd.
vs. Sri Ram and others; 2.Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam; 3. Avon Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Nagar Nigam and others; 4. Vinod Kumar vs. Nagar Nigam and others; 5 Vinod Kumar and others vs.
Nagar Nigam and 6. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam.(Para-3)

The petitioner is concerned with Case No. 4/2000 (Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam,
Moradabad) by which on the agreement of the parties the exchange of land under Section 161 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act of 1950) was allowed with
respect to Gata no. 245 M measuring 0.802 Hec. situated in Village Harthala, Ahatmali, Moradabad by
expunging the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of
Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad and recording the name of Nagar
Nigam and over Plot Nos. 386 measuring about 0.085 Hec., 460 measuring about 0.243 Hec., 469
measuring about 0.474 Hec. total of three plots measuring about 0.802 Hec. ordered for recording
the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd.
Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad.(Para-4)

It appears that in certain other cases too land of Nagar Nigam was exchanged with other persons.
Learned Member, Board of Revenue in suo motu proceeding under section 219 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 ( in short the Act of 1901) has entertained the aforesaid revision and stayed the
order of exchange dated 11.9.2000 passed in Case No. 4/2000 and transmitted the matter before the