# Kavita Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1986
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-06
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 28658 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddharth Varma, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kavita-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54555
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Registration Act-Section 34-In
the present case, the allegations and the
consequent findings are that the alleged
sale deed dated 25.07.1956 had never
existed
and
the
same
had
been
interpolated in the records of the SubRegistrar in place of some pre-existing
registered sale deed-Since, the existence
of the sale deed in favor of the father of
the petitioner was not found to be in
existence and the petitioner failed to
produce the original sale deed-therefore,
on
complaints
received,
the
District
Magistrate concerned had directed the
inquiry-The respondent no. 2 and 3 had
carried out the inquiry and had found the
sale deed was never in existence-The
court held that where such a fact had
been established with regard to the nonexistence of any particular document then
the bar of section 34 of the Registration
Act would not apply-Therefore, on receipt
of such complaints the inquiry conducted
by the respondents no. 2 and 3 cannot be
said
to
be
without
jurisdiction-The
petitioner cannot be granted any relief as
when the cloud was cast on his title he
had not filed any suit for the declaration
of his own rights-Hence, no interference
requires.

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

1986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be submitted in hard copy
to
the
office
of
Superintending Engineer,
O&MC-V,
2x250MW,
CTPS, PTPP, Parichha,
Jhansi.

A bare perusal of clause B-6 and
Annexure V incorporated in the bid
document clearly goes to show that the
bidder has to provide declaration on
notarized affidavit, Non Judicial Stamp
paper of Rs.100/-, that the bidder has not
been blacklisted/work awarded to the
bidder has not been terminated by the
SEBs/State
GENCO/Central
GENCO/PSU's/CPSU/Statutory
Body,
Independent Power Producers (IPP). The
petitioner knowing the fact that he was
disqualified gave a false declaration and in
order to cross the first hurdle of technical
qualifications,
by
misrepresenting
the
petitioner got itself to be technically
qualified and its bid was opened. Claim of
being L1 is immaterial as only those
financial bids could be entertained, who are
technically qualified. The petitioner herein
does not qualify or pass first hurdle and
hence it cannot take a benefit or argue that
since its bid was lowest, the tender should
be awarded to it.

27. As per ratio laid down in
catena of judgements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it is clear that the scope of
judicial review in the contractual matter is
very limited. Moreover the respondents
have the freedom to award the contract.
The fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body
functioning in an administrative sphere or
quasi-administrative sphere. The decision
of the respondent must not only be tested
by the application of Wednesbury Principle
of Reasonableness but must be free from
arbitrariness not affected by bias or
actuated by malafides. This is the case in
which there is no malafides or bias or
arbitrariness. The bid of the petitioner had
rightly been rejected since it had given a
wrong statement on an affidavit stating that
nowhere they have been blacklisted or their
contract have been terminated.

28. The petitioner, knowing the
fact that it was not qualified to participate
in the tender, tried to grab the tender by
giving a false declaration by way of an
affidavit, by misrepresenting the petitioner
tried to get itself technically qualified and
accordingly, the bid was opened. The claim
of the petitioner that it being the lowest
(L1) is not material, as the bid of
technically
qualified
can
only
be
considered. Hence, the petitioner, who is
technically
disqualified,
cannot
be
considered in the tender procedure.

29. In view of above discussions,
we find no merit in the writ petition, hence
the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

30. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1986
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ-C No. 28658 of 2023

Kavita Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
3 All. Kavita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1987
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Sri Manoj Kumar
Sharma

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Registration Act-Section 34-In
the present case, the allegations and the
consequent findings are that the alleged
sale deed dated 25.07.1956 had never
existed
and
the
same
had
been
interpolated in the records of the SubRegistrar in place of some pre-existing
registered sale deed-Since, the existence
of the sale deed in favor of the father of
the petitioner was not found to be in
existence and the petitioner failed to
produce the original sale deed-therefore,
on
complaints
received,
the
District
Magistrate concerned had directed the
inquiry-The respondent no. 2 and 3 had
carried out the inquiry and had found the
sale deed was never in existence-The
court held that where such a fact had
been established with regard to the nonexistence of any particular document then
the bar of section 34 of the Registration
Act would not apply-Therefore, on receipt
of such complaints the inquiry conducted
by the respondents no. 2 and 3 cannot be
said
to
be
without
jurisdiction-The
petitioner cannot be granted any relief as
when the cloud was cast on his title he
had not filed any suit for the declaration
of his own rights-Hence, no interference
requires.

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Smt Kusum Lata Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2018)
AIR Alld 210

2. Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs Ahmad Ishaque & ors.
(1955)AIR SC 233

3. Jamila Begam Vs Shami Mohd(2019) 2 SCC
727
4. UO & ors. Vs Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Socy
Ltd. & ors. (2014) AIR SC 937

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
with a prayer that the Joint Inquiry Report
dated
22.5.2019
submitted
by
the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance &
Revenue), District Moradabad and the
Assistant Inspector General (Registration),
District Moradabad in respect of a saledeed executed on 4.7.1956 and registered
on 25.7.1956, which was found to be
registered as Document No. 1335, at Bahi
No. 1, Jild No. 892 at Page Nos. 265 to 266
and was registered before the SubRegistrar, Moradabad, be quashed.

2. A further prayer has been made
that the petitioner be not proceeded against
with regard to the registered document i.e.
sale-deed dated 25.7.1956 in pursuance of
the Inquiry Report dated 22.5.2019.

3. The petitioner has contended
that
a
sale-deed
was
registered
on
25.7.1956 in favour of one Vijay Kumar
Sharma, the father of the petitioner herein
and the vendor was one Smt. Prem Kunwar,
widow of Prasadi Lal. It is the further
contention of the petitioner that the name of
Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma was mutated on
25.10.1956. Further it has been argued that
after Vijay Kumar Sharma died on
13.2.2011, an application for mutation was
moved by the petitioner which came to be
dismissed on 6.11.2015 on the ground that
the
application
was
barred
by
the
provisions
of
Section
49
of
the
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. He
further submits that thereafter the petitioner
filed a revision before the Board of
Revenue, which was allowed on 20.1.2017.
1988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner
thereafter
states
that
an
application
was
filed
before
the
Consolidation Courts under Rule 109A(1)
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Rules, 1954, in which the name of the
petitioner was entered in the plots in
dispute being Plots No. 370/1, 370/2,
371/1, 371/2, 372, 373, 379/1 measuring
total rakba 2.81 acre, Mauza Majhauli,
Tehsil Sadar, District Moradabad. It has
been submitted that the numbers of the
plots were re-numbered and were also
reduced in area during consolidation. The
four plots now bore Nos. 280Ka, 282, 283,
289Ka). The petitioner has stated that the
predecessor in the interest of intervenor, Sri
Ram Bahadur and Sri Ram Kripal had
though purchased the same plots in
question on 16.9.1961, had no title in those
plots as the plots had already been sold on
25.7.1956.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner therefore states that no right was
flowing to the predecessor in the interest of
the intervenor on account of the sale deed
dated 10.9.1961.

5. Since there was interference in
the plots in question and the mutation etc.
was being hindered the petitioner filed an
original suit being Original Suit No. 148 of
2013 and in it releif was for a declaratory
decree declaring that the sale-deed dated
16.9.1961 executed in favour of the
predecessor in the interest of defendants in
the suit was null and void. There was also a
prayer for permanent injunction that the
defendants in the suit may not disturb the
possession of the petitioner. This suit came
to be dismissed on 11.7.2023. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the order impugned in the writ petition
had come in the way of the civil suit and
therefore, after the civil court had decreed
the suit on the basis of the impugned Joint
Inquiry Report dated 22.5.2019 the instant
writ petition was filed. Learned counsel for
the petitioner therefore has ultimately
prayed that the Joint Inquiry Report dated
22.5.2019 be set aside.

6. Sri K.M. Asthana, learned
counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the Joint Inquiry Report which
is in the form of the order dated 22.5.2019
could not have been passed by respondent
nos.2
and
3 i.e.Additional
District
Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District
Moradabad and the Assistant Inspector
General (Registration), District Moradabad
as they had neither the authority nor
jurisdiction to conduct the said inquiries.
They also had no authority to annul the
sale-deed of the petitioner dated 25.7.1956.
He has submitted that in the Registration
Act even though, under Section 34 and 35,
inquiry could be conducted before the
Registration by the Registering Officer
regarding the document to be registered,
the registering authority had no power to
cancel any particular document which had
been
registered.
In
support
of
this
argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of
this Court report in AIR 2018 Allahabad
210, Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P.
and Ors. He has submitted that if any
registered document had to be cancelled
then the same could be done by filing a
civil suit in a competent civil court and,
therefore, only under the common laws a
registered document could be cancelled.

7. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that if an
order/report was without jurisdiction then
the same could be quashed by issuance of a
Writ of Certiorari. For that purpose learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR
3 All. Kavita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1989
1955 SC 233, Hari Vishnu Kamath v.
Ahmad Ishaque and others. Specifically,
he has relied upon paragraph 21 of it. Still
further he has submitted that registered
sale-deed is proof enough of valid
execution of a sale-deed and once it is
registered it can only be set aside by the
filing of a suit. For bolstering his argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon a judgment of the Supreme Court
reported in Jamila Begam v. Shami
Mohd. (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases
727.

8. Learned counsel for the
intervenor, on the other hand, in reply
submitted that the petitioner had, to begin
with, no right over the property as the saledeed, which the petitioner alleged was
executed on 4.7.1956 and registered on
25.7.1956, was in fact, never in existence.
He submits that there was no question of
any presumption of the correctness of the
document inasmuch as the presence of the
proof of registration itself was doubted. He
has submitted that there are reports to the
effect that the sale-deed which was
registered at Bahi No. 1, Jild No.
892,Document No. 1335,at Page Nos.
265 to 266, was in fact, some other
document
and
by
manipulation
and
interpolation the petitioner has got his saledeed printed/transcribed on those pages. He
submits that therefore, it was a clear case of
forgery and the petitioner could not say that
there was a sale-deed in existence and the
registration
of
the
same
had
been
questioned and had thereafter been looked
into by respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e.
Additional District Magistrate (Finance &
Revenue), District Moradabad and the
Assistant Inspector General (Registration),
District Moradabad. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra
and Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned
counsel for the intervenor have submitted
that if there was any cloud on the title of
the petitioner then he should have filed a
civil suit for the declaration of his title. For
that purpose he relies upon a judgment
reported in AIR 2014 SC 937 Union of
India & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-Op. Housing
Society Ltd. & Ors. He specifically relies
upon paragraph nos. 17 and 20, which have
been reproduced hereinunder:-

"....17.This
Court
in
several
Judgments has held that the revenue
records does not confer title.In Corporation
of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and
another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is
firmly established that revenue records are
not documents of title, and the question of
interpretation of document not being a
document of title is not a question of law."
In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and
others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has
held that "that the entries in jamabandi are
not proof of title". InState of Himachal
Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996)
11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the
entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch
of imagination can form the basis for
declaration of title in favour of the
plaintiff."
20. We are of the view that even if
the entries in the Record of Rights carry
evidentiary value, that itself would not
confer any title on the plaintiff on the suit
land in question. Ext.X-1 is Classer
Register of 1347 which according to the
trial court, speaks of the ownership of the
plaintiff's vendor's property. We are of the
view that these entries, as such, would not
confer any title. Plaintiffs have to show,
independent of those entries, that the
plaintiff's predecessors had title over the
property in question and it is that property
which they have purchased. The only
document that has been produced before
the court was the registered family
1990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
settlement
and
partition
deed
dated
11.12.1939 of their predecessor in interest,
wherein, admittedly, the suit land in
question has not been mentioned."

9. Learned counsel for the
intervenor states that in the case cited
above, cloud had been cast on the title on
the basis of wrong revenue entries and the
plaintiff had filed a civil suit and it was
held by the Supreme Court that the suit for
declaration definitely lay. Further learned
counsel for the intervenor had relied upon
AIR 2015 Allahabad 174 and had
submitted that whenever there is an
invasion amounting to denial of title, it
gives a fresh right to the petitioner to file a
suit and he can always file a suit for
declaration in his favour. Similarly, he has
relied upon a judgment reported in AIR
1984 Karnataka 153 and has submitted
that suit may be instituted under the
provisions of Specific Relief Act against
the persons denying title of the plot.
Learned
counsel
for
the
intervenor
therefore, has submitted that when the
cloud was cast on the title of the petitioner
he should have filed a civil suit for
declaration of his own rights and if any
document/order/entry was coming in his
way then by leading of the evidence he
could have got the report/inquiry falsified.

10. Learned counsel for the
intervenor has submitted that the petitioner
had erroneously come to the High Court
with a prayer for setting aside of the
inquiry report dated 22.5.2019. He has
submitted that the setting aside of the
inquiry report would demand leading of
evidence and that cannot be conveniently
done by a Court exercising powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the intervenor, Sri
Sudhir Mehrotra further had submitted that
a perusal of the order under Section 34 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act dated 6.11.2015
definitely shows that it contained a finding
that the land which was subject matter of
dispute i.e. plot nos. 370/1, 370/2, 371/1,
371/2, 372, 373, 379/1 measuring total area
2.81 acre was subjected to consolidation
and the names of the predecessors in the
interest of intervenor were entered. He has
submitted
that
once
consolidation
operations intervened and there was an
opportunity to the persons whose names
were not entered then any litigation
thereafter was barred under Section 49 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953.

11. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the intervenor heavily relied
upon Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953, which is reproduced
hereinunder:-

"49.
Bar
to
civil
Courts
jurisdiction. - Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, the declaration and
adjudication of right of tenure-holder in
respect of land lying in an area, for which
a[notification] has been issued[under
sub-section
(2)
of
Section
4]
or
adjudication of any other right arising out
of consolidation proceedings and in regard
to which a proceeding could or ought to
have been taken under this Act, shall be
done in accordance with the provisions of
this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court
shall entertain any suit or proceeding with
respect to rights in such land or with
respect to any other matters for which a
proceeding could or ought to have been
taken under this Act :
[Provided that nothing in this
section
shall
preclude
the
Assistant
Collector from initiating proceedings under
3 All. Kavita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1991
Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 in respect of any land, possession
over which has been delivered or deemed to
be delivered to aGaon Sabhaunder or
in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.]"

12. Learned counsel for the
intervenor further has submitted that if the
petitioner is still to get his rights declared
then he can always under the civil laws file
a civil suit for the declaration of his right
under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
He can lead all evidence which would
enable him to establish that he had a right
and title over the property in dispute.

13. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties, we are definitely of the
view that the writ petition lacks merits and
deserves to be dismissed.

14. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relying upon Sections 34 of the
Registration Act, has contented that once a
document
regarding
the
transfer
of
immovable property is registered, no
inquiry with regard to the same can be
conducted by the Registering Authority,
subsequent to the registration. In the instant
case, the allegations and the consequent
findings are that the alleged sale deed dated
25.07.1956 had never existed and the same
had been interpolated in the records of the
Sub-Registrar in place of some pre-existing
registered sale deed. Since, the existence of
the sale deed in favour of the father of the
petitioner herein was not found to be in
existence and the petitioner has failed to
produce the original sale deed, therefore,
on the complaints received, the District
Magistrate concerned had directed the
inquiry. Thereupon, the respondent nos. 2
and 3 had carried out the inquiry and had
found that the sale deed which is dated
25.07.1956 was never in existence and only
by interpolation in some pre-existing deed,
this sale deed had been created in favour of
the
father
of
the
petitioner
herein.
Therefore, in the considered view of this
Court where such a fact had been
established with regard to the non existence
of any particular document then the bar of
Section 34 of the Registration Act would
not apply.. Therefore, on receipt of such
complaints the inquiry conducted by the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot be said to
be without jurisdiction.

15. The petitioner as we have seen
was aggrieved by the cloud cast on his title.
He had filed a suit but the suit was only for
declaration that the sale-deed registered on
16.9.1961 be declared null and void. He
had not filed any civil suit for the
declaration of his rights. The law of the
land is settled that whenever there is a
cloud cast on the title of a person and he
claims title then for that purpose he has to
file a civil suit and would necessarily lead
evidence for the declaration of his right.

16. In the instant case, the
petitioner cannot be granted any relief as
when the cloud was cast on his title he had
not filed any suit for the declaration of his
own rights. Further, we as a Court
exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot permit the
parties to lead evidence here in the High
Court for seeing as to whether the inquiry
report was based on proper evidence. Had
it been an open and shut case where no
evidence had to be led then of course, the
High Court could have looked into the facts
as to whether the order/inquiry report
which had declared the entries in the
registration register as fabricated was based
on correct facts. But in the instant case
1992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there are many surrounding circumstances
which need to be establish by leading of
evidence. Under such circumstances, we
consider that no interference is warranted
and we do not think it to be a fit case for
interference. Accordingly, the writ petition
is dismissed.

17. We find that the petitioner's
original suit bearing Suit No. 148 of 2014
was dismissed and the petitioner has
already filed a First Appeal bearing First
Appeal No. 131 of 2023. None of the
findings as have been arrived at in this
judgment would affect the merits of the
First Appeal. It may be decided on its own
merits.

18. It may also be noted that we
have not passed any order on the merits of
the report dated 22.5.2019, which is under
challenge.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1992
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 30867 of 2016

Shravan Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Division Lko. & Anr.
 ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amit Kumar Pathak, Ganesh Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Arms
Act,1959-Section
17,3/25/30-Petitioer
challenged
the
cancellation of arms license-an FIR was
lodged against the petitioner and his
cousin-merely on account of recovery of
gun from his cousin's premises, notice was
issued to the petitioner-The court held
that merely because the weapon was
found in the possession of other individual
cannot be ground sufficient itself to
construe violation of terms and conditions
of the license-there is no allegation that
the petitioner or his cousin had ever
misused the licensed weapon-Accordingly,
the findings recorded by the District
Magistrate as well as the order passed by
the Appellate authority are arbitrary and
accordingly set aside.(Para 1 to 17)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Satish Singh Vs D.M. Sultanpur(2009)4 ADJ
33 (LB)

2. Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs Vs Anil Kumar Bhunja & ors. (1974) 4
SCC 274

3. Gunwantlal Vs St. of M.P. (1973) 1 SCR 508

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav,
Advocate holding brief of Shri Ganesh
Kumar
Gupta,
learned
counsel
for
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the material available on
record.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the
District
Magistrate,
Lakhimpur
Kheri
whereby in exercise of powers under
Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, he has
cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner
as well as order dated 03.11.2015 wherein
the appeal filed against the order of the