# Dujai Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 28 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-04-29 - **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dujai-ram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43583 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES bhumidhari rights. After consolidation proceedings, the disputed property was declared as enemy property within ownership of State. In revenue records it is recorded accordingly. Therefore unless it is declared otherwise by competent revenue court, its title shall remain vest in the State. Therefore the bhumidhari rights of plaintiff-appellant over disputed land cannot be accepted, recognized or determined by the civil court. So the plaintiff's suit for the relief of claim in plaint was barred by provisions of Section-49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Therefore the period during the period when consolidation proceedings were being carried out suit in hand was barred by section-49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, and after completion of said consolidation proceedings, the plaintiffs' claim in original suit is barred by provisions of Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. So the civil court had no jurisdiction to grant the actual relief sought by plaintiff/ appellant which can be granted only after declaring him or recognizing him as bhumidhar with transferable rights of disputed agricultural property. In these circumstances, there appears no error, irregularity or illegality in the judgments of two courts below. 17. These points relate to question of law, but are not substantial question of law. On the basis of admitted facts mentioned in plaint itself, plaintiff's suit was barred by provisions of law because plaintiff being not recorded as tenure holder is not entitled to get the requested relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, who are recorded tenure holders of disputed in revenue records, after the litigation before the consolidation court and the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation whose judgment had become final and on basis of which revenue records were prepared. 18. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court are well reasoned, based upon proper appreciation of the entire record, especially the plaint. No question of substantial question of law was involved in the case before this Court. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first appellate court to warrant interference in this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiffs can be sustained. 19. In view of the above, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The second appeal is dismissed. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J. Writ Petition / Service Single No.- 320 Of 2005 (S/S) Dujai Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties 4 All. Dujai Ram Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 29 Present petition has been filed quashing the impugned punishment order dated 01/10/2004 passed by District Magistrate, Sitapur, whereby the petitioner has been reverted to initial pay of the pay-scale of Rs. 4000- 6000 and was also awarded censure entry. Court observed that the petitioner has alleged that no show cause notice was issued to him which is absolutely incorrect. As a matter of fact, the Disciplinary Authority, after receipt of inquiry report and after being satisfied that the charges stood proved on the basis of material on record and thereafter sent a show cause notice to the petitioner on 6.2.2004 annexing therewith copy of inquiry report but instead of submitting reply, the petitioner demanded time. In the impugned order, t has been mentioned that the same was received by the petitioner on 10.2.2004 as per report dated 25.6.2004 of the Tehsildar, Sidhauli. Ultimately, when no reply was received, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of materials available on record passed the impugned order of punishment. If opportunity has been afforded but it has not been availed by the petitioner, then petitioner has to blame himself and it cannot be said that the punishment order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Writ petition is dismissed. List of Cases Cited 1. Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others; [2004(22)LCD 155] (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.) 1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition inter alia praying for quashing the impugned punishment order dated 01/10/2004 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] passed by Sri Amod Kumar, District Magistrate, Sitapur, whereby the petitioner has been reverted to initial pay of the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and was also awarded censure entry. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Assistant Registrar Kanongo, Tehsil Sidhauli, District Sitapur was served with a charge-sheet containing charges of irregularity in mutation proceedings in case no. 222/512 under Section 34 L.R. Act [Smt. Rachana Singh and others vs. Smt. Shanti Devi of village Nanpara, Pargana Badhi,Tehsil Sidhauli]. 4. The Inquiry Officer after concluding the inquiry submitted his inquiry report on which the District Magistrate/Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 6.2.2004 annexing therewith a copy of the inquiry report and requiring his comment. Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment had been passed. 5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no show cause notice advancing therein reasons for acceptance of Inquiry Report and proposed punishment has been given to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and as such, it vitiates the impugned order of punishment. 30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 6. It has been stated by the petitioner that when the petitioner was punished, he was 58 years of age and only 2 years in his retirement, putting him at the basic pay of the pay-scale alongwith recording of a censure entry in his character roll at the fag end of the service has caused serious prejudice and monetary loss to him. 7. Lastly it has been submitted that that neither the Inquiry officer nor the disciplinary officer did apply their mind that there was no reason whatsoever to uphold the charges against him and acted mechanically in a pre-decided manner in colorable exercise of powers. 8. On the contrary, the Standing Counsel has submitted that while petitioner being posted as Assistant Registrar Kanoongo in Tehsil Sidhauli, he had committed serious irregularities of backdating illegally in transfer account (Namantaran Bahi) for giving undue benefits to the khatedar for which departmental proceedings were initiated against him and charge-sheet was issued. The petitioner in connivance with the khatedar at the serial no.11 and 12 had done overwriting and made 12 and 13 at serial no. 10 dated 28.10.1998 after making mutation. 9. The Punishing Authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Sitapur, after considering the inquiry report, issued a show cause notice dated 6.2.2004 but the petitioner had not submitted his reply and demanded more time. Ultimately, when no reply was received despite lapse of considerable long time, the impugned punishment was awarded to the petitioner. 10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it comes out that from the report dated 25.9.2001 and 27.5.2003 of the Incharge Officer,Ceiling it is established that the petitioner had made interpolations in the revenue record with an oblique motive to give advantage to some one. This Court had earlier directed for production of Khatauni pertaining to Khata no.248 of Smt.Shanti Devi and relevant page of mutation register containing the mutation order, which have been brought on record. A careful scrutiny of the record shows that Khatauni pertaining to Khata no. 248 of Shanti Devi, there are some interpolations/over writing. The Inquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that these over-writing/interpolations were made by the petitioner. At serial no. 10 date 28.10.1998 after making mutation, serial no.11 had been added and the mutation of 28.09-1998 had been entered as serial no.12, the order dated 8.3.1999 was mentioned. Thus the mutation of serial no. 11 had been made by overwriting with an oblique motive on extraneous considerations. 11. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner has alleged that no show cause notice was issued to him which is absolutely incorrect. As a matter of fact, the Disciplinary Authority, after receipt of inquiry report and after being satisfied that the charges stood proved on the basis of material on record and thereafter sent a show cause notice to the petitioner on 6.2.2004 annexing therewith copy of inquiry report but instead of submitting reply, the petitioner demanded time. In the impugned order, t has been mentioned that the same was received by the petitioner on 10.2.2004 as per report dated 25.6.2004 of the Tehsildar, Sidhauli. Ultimately, when no reply was received, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of materials available on record passed the impugned order of punishment. If opportunity has been afforded but it has not been availed by the 4 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Savita Katiyar & Ors. 31 petitioner, then petitioner has to blame himself and it cannot be said that the punishment order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Furthermore, petitioner has failed to establish the prejudice which has been caused to him. Therefore, the proposition of law laid down in Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others; [2004(22)LCD 155] which has been relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this court do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, which is hereby approved. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. First Appeal From Order No.- 578 Of 2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Savita Katiyar & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Appellant: Vipin Chandra Dixit HELD: 1. The only ground pressed by the insurer was that the driver did not have an endorsement on his licence for carrying hazardous goods. 2. The Court held this ground to be meritless because: (a) The record showed the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive a **transport vehicle** since 12.10.2000. (b) A tanker is included within the definition of a transport vehicle under Section 2(47) read with Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (c) The insurer failed to show that on the date of accident (04.05.2010) the tanker was **carrying hazardous or dangerous goods**, which is the only situation where Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 would apply. 3. Since hazardous material was not being transported, endorsement under Rule 9 was **not required**. 4. The Claims Tribunal correctly held the driving licence valid on the date of accident.