# Chandra Shekhar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1617
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-13
- **Case number:** Misc. Singhle No. 7739 of 2013
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-shekhar-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42833
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Opportunity of hearing-person claiming
violation of principle of Natural Justiceto come forward and show if opportunity
given-what
would
be
plausible
explanation-entry in revenue recored by
playing fraud-FIR already lodged against
erring
revenue
officers-claim
of
petitioner to re-enter his name by
deleting
name
of
Gaon
sabha
in
pursuance of order passed by DDC 15
years ago-by exercising power of review
in
view
of
full
bench
decisionconsolidation authorities have no power
of review-held-claim rightly rejectedpetition dismissed.

Held: Para-9&10

## Text

3 All] Chandra Shekhar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1617
Zamindari, no proceedings was ever
initiated by the father of the petitioner and
even after the death of the father of the
petitioner in 1980, the petitioner did not
initiate any proceeding. The silence on the
part of the petitioner as well as his father
for the more than of 50 years cannot be
raised
and
adjudicated
in
a
writ
jurisdiction under article 226.

14. The Court is of the view that
property on which the Bank stands was
deemed to have been settled in favour of
the Bank by the State under section 9 of
U.P.Z.A & L.R Act.

15. For the reasons stated herein
above, this Court is not inclined to interfere
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The relief claimed for seeking
mandamus to enable the petitioner to transfer
the property to 3rd party cannot be accorded
as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate
before this Court that he has any title to the
said property.

16. The petition is devoid of merits
and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Misc. Singhle No. 7739 of 2013

Chandra Shekhar Tripathi... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Yogendra Nath Yadav
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Opportunity of hearing-person claiming
violation of principle of Natural Justiceto come forward and show if opportunity
given-what
would
be
plausible
explanation-entry in revenue recored by
playing fraud-FIR already lodged against
erring
revenue
officers-claim
of
petitioner to re-enter his name by
deleting
name
of
Gaon
sabha
in
pursuance of order passed by DDC 15
years ago-by exercising power of review
in
view
of
full
bench
decisionconsolidation authorities have no power
of review-held-claim rightly rejectedpetition dismissed.

Held: Para-9&10
9.

As
it
was
stark
forgery
and
manipulation, hence impugned orders
cannot be set aside on the ground of
denial of opportunity of hearing. In any
case in the writ petition petitioner has
thoroughly been heard and original
records have also been shown to his
learned counsel as well as to the court.

10. The argument that in respect of
abadi land, petitioner should not be
evicted is also not acceptable as from the
original records of 1359 Fasli, it is
evident that over the said land also name
of the petitioner's father was inserted
much later fraudulently.

Case Law discussed:
2005(98)RD
244;
2009(108)
RD
321;
2010(15) SCC 218; AIR 2000 SC 2783;
2007(4) SCC 54; 1997(15) LCD 921.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah
Khan, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.N. Tripatahi, learned
counsel for petitioner and Sri Y.M.S.
Yadav, learned standing counsel for
respondents.

2. Through this writ petition order
dated 03.08.2010 passed by Deputy D.M.,
Patti Pratapgarh in Case No.40 under
1618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act,
Shatrughan
Tiwari
and
others
Vs.
Chandrashekhar
and
order
dated
23.09.2013
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner (II), Allahabad Division,
Allahabad dismissing the Revision No.32
filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 03.08.2010 have been challenged.
Through the impugned orders, it has been
directed that name of the petitioner
recorded over the land in dispute should
be cancelled and the land in dispute
should be re-entered as Gaon Sabha land.
Land was directed to be entered as naveen
parti, jungle, pond, abadi. It was held that
forgery
had
been
committed
and
manipulation had been made in the
revenue records. FIR was also lodged
against the officials, who had made
manipulation in the records.

3. However, the Deputy D.M.
committed a blunder by not hearing the
petitioner.

4. It is repeatedly directed by this
Court that such type of orders shall not be
passed without hearing the persons likely
to be affected therefrom, however the
Deputy Collectors are not paying any
heed. In this regard reference may be
made to the authority of Chaturgan Vs.
State 2005 (98) RD 244 and Dina Nath
Vs. State, 2009 (108) RD 321, which has
been approved by Supreme Court in Dina
Nath Vs. State, 2010 (15) SCC 218 (para4). In future the court may consider to
direct recording of adverse entry against
the revenue officers, who pass such type
of orders without hearing the persons
concerned. However the Supreme Court
in A.M.U. Aligarh Vs. M.A. Khan, AIR
2000 SC 2783 and Ashok Kumar Sonekar
Vs. Union of India, 2007 (4) SCC 54 has
held that if in a writ petition an order is
challenged on the ground that opportunity
of hearing was not provided then in the
writ petition it must be shown that in case
opportunity of hearing had been provided,
what plausible cause the petitioner would
have shown.

5. Petitioner's case is that D.D.C.
Pratapgarh had passed an order in his favour
on
24.03.1972
in
Revision
No.2138,
Chandrashekhar Vs. Gaon Sabha, copy of
which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In
the said order, it is mentioned that earlier the
revision had been dismissed on 24.01.1972,
however review petition had been filed,
which was allowed through order dated
24.03.1972. It is further mentioned in the
said order that from the perusal of the record
it was clear that the land in dispute was
entered in the name of petitioner's father as
bag bila lagan bhoomidhari and without any
order, the said land was subsequently entered
in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Annexure-3
to the writ petition is photostat copy of the
revenue records of 1359 Fasli onward. On
26.11.2013, learned standing counsel was
directed
to
produce
original
records.
Accordingly, the records were produced on
28.11.2013 and shown to the learned counsel
for petitioner also and photostat copies of
relevant records were placed on record of
this writ petition after providing one set to
the learned counsel for petitioner also as
recorded in the order dated 28.11.2013. It
was more than apparent even to the naked
eye that manipulation by addition of the
name of Sataya Narain father of the
petitioner had been made in the records.
They were clearly in different ink and
handwriting.

6. The most glaring aspect of the
matter is that the order of the D.D.C. dated
24.03.1972 was not mutated for 15 years.
Application for mutation was filed under
3 All] Kanpur Electricity Supply Co.Ltd. Vs. Deepak Sikroria & Anr.
1619
Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Rules and order was passed on 09.01.1989.
Thereafter, petitioner's name was mutated. In
case petitioner's review had been allowed
then there was absolutely no question as to
why petitioner would have remained silent.
Even in the report of Consolidator, copy of
which is Annexure-7, it has categorically
been stated that mutation of the alleged order
of March 1972 was not there in C.H. Form45 available in Tehsil. In case order dated
24.03.1972 had in fact been passed there was
no reason that why it was not included and
mentioned in C.H. Form-45. In any case if
due to inadvertence it had not been in fact so
incorporated, it is impossible that petitioner
would have remained silent for 15 years.

7. It is experience of the court that in
consolidation people are rather liberally
manufacturing forged orders and seeking
their implementation after several years.
Accordingly, no such order can be
presumed to have been passed unless
application for its mutation is promptly
filed. Records of the revision have been
weeded out.

8. Last but not least a Full Bench of
this court reported in Smt. Anar Kali Vs.
D.D.C., 1997 (15) LCD 921 has held that
D.D.C. has got no power to review.

9. As it was stark forgery and
manipulation, hence impugned orders cannot
be set aside on the ground of denial of
opportunity of hearing. In any case in the writ
petition petitioner has thoroughly been heard
and original records have also been shown to
his learned counsel as well as to the court.

10. The argument that in respect of
abadi land, petitioner should not be
evicted is also not acceptable as from the
original records of 1359 Fasli, it is evident
that over the said land also name of the
petitioner's father was inserted much later
fraudulently.

11. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed. Petitioner shall be evicted
forthwith.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8125 of 1998

Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd..
 ..Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Sikroria & Anr..... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri Nripendra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri S.N. Dubey

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
33(c)(2)-Application
for
execution
of
realization of amount of award-already got
finally by apex court-inspite of direction of
court-in the term of award not compliedwith
letter
and
spirit-contention
that
computation of arrear of salary-amounts to
adjudication of claim-not permissible under
mode
of
execution-held-misconceiveddirection for compliance of award with 9%
interest-given.

Held: Para-21
The grievance of the workman was that
even after 10 years, the award of the
Labour Court and the order of the
Supreme Court were not complied with
in true letter and spirit but were
complied
with
partly,
therefore,
he
moved an application under Section 33C
(2) of the Act, 1947 in respect of a claim,