# Mukhdev v. Collector/D.D.C. & others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 672
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-07-23
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 608 of 1995
- **Bench:** Yogendra Kumar Sangal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukhdev-v-collector-d-d-c-others-41675
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art
226-
Cancellation of Patta granted by A.R.O.
On 31.12.70-Land in Question reserved
for forest on 30.07.70-Gazete published
on
21.1.71
consequently
land
in
Question
vested
with
forest
under
2 All] Mukhdev V. Collector/D.D.C. & others
673
section
20-all
rights
obligations
of
individual came to an end-consolidation
authorities
rightly
canceled
such
document-obtained with collusion of
authorities-granted against the law-No
extraordinary power can be exercised.

Held: Para 12

This Patta and entry in the revenue
record were not issued and made in
accordance with the provisions of Law.
This have no legal value. If ignoring the
same at the time of PADTAL and initial
stage of the proceedings to keep the
record of right up to date and correct
Consolidation Officer has made entry of
Reserved Forest on the land in dispute
along with other land shown in the
Notification under Section 4 and 20 of
the Act, in these circumstances, the Act
of Consolidation Officer cannot be held
illegal
and
without
jurisdiction.
By
cancelling the impugned order of three
Consolidation authorities, if again an
entry in the revenue record of the name
of the petitioner is made it will be a
wrong and void entry in the record. No
useful purpose will be served by passing
such
order
because
again
Forest
Department
will
take
steps
for
expunging this entry. It is established
law that even if ground exists, court can
refuse to interfere in writ jurisdiction
with the impugned order, if there is no
miscarriage of justice by the same.
Case Law Discussed:
1996 RD 448.

## Text

672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
awaiting medical check-up or medical
report or for any other reason for more than
24 hours. For medical examination, such
person may be permitted to stay for limited
period to the maximum of three days in the
hospital/Primary Health Centre or other
statutory home or shelters. If necessary,
appropriate police protection may be
provided during such stay at a place other
than police station.

2. The Government shall ensure that
the medical examination of the prosecutrix
or a witness or the person involved in a
criminal case be done on the same day or
within the maximum period of 24 hours and
the hospital/Primary Health Centre shall
ensure to submit the report by the next 24
hours to the police station concerned. Let
appropriate circular be issued accordingly
forthwith.

3. The Chief Secretary, Government of
U.P. Is directed to appoint a Committee of
experts which shall frame appropriate
guidelines
for
medical
examination/submission of the report to the
police/investigating agency keeping in view
the time involved in such medical or
pharmacological examination, expeditiously
and preferably within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.

Since the petitioner No.2 was kept in
the premises of the police station for about
two weeks without justifiable reason
causing mental pain and agony and her stay
has been held to be violative of Art. 21 of
the Constitution of India, she shall be
entitled for the compensation/cost, to the
tune
of
Rs.25,000/-
from
the
state
Government which shall be deposited in
this Court within two months from today
with liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the
amount so deposited.

It shall be open for the petitioners to avail
appropriate
remedy
for
further
compensation and action permissible under
law.

51. Let a copy of the order be sent to
the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. for
compliance and to issue appropriate order
or circular in terms of the aforesaid
direction and submit a compliance report
within three months. Registry to take
follow-up action.

The
writ
petition
is
allowed
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL, J.

Consolidation No. 608 of 1995

Mukhdev

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Collector/D.D.C. & others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Akhilesh Kalra
Sri Ram Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art
226-
Cancellation of Patta granted by A.R.O.
On 31.12.70-Land in Question reserved
for forest on 30.07.70-Gazete published
on
21.1.71
consequently
land
in
Question
vested
with
forest
under
2 All] Mukhdev V. Collector/D.D.C. & others
673
section
20-all
rights
obligations
of
individual came to an end-consolidation
authorities
rightly
canceled
such
document-obtained with collusion of
authorities-granted against the law-No
extraordinary power can be exercised.

Held: Para 12

This Patta and entry in the revenue
record were not issued and made in
accordance with the provisions of Law.
This have no legal value. If ignoring the
same at the time of PADTAL and initial
stage of the proceedings to keep the
record of right up to date and correct
Consolidation Officer has made entry of
Reserved Forest on the land in dispute
along with other land shown in the
Notification under Section 4 and 20 of
the Act, in these circumstances, the Act
of Consolidation Officer cannot be held
illegal
and
without
jurisdiction.
By
cancelling the impugned order of three
Consolidation authorities, if again an
entry in the revenue record of the name
of the petitioner is made it will be a
wrong and void entry in the record. No
useful purpose will be served by passing
such
order
because
again
Forest
Department
will
take
steps
for
expunging this entry. It is established
law that even if ground exists, court can
refuse to interfere in writ jurisdiction
with the impugned order, if there is no
miscarriage of justice by the same.
Case Law Discussed:
1996 RD 448.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar
Sangal, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner Mukhdev with the prayer
to issue writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari to quash the impugned
judgement and order dated 28.02.1978
passed
by
the
C.O.
(Consolidation
Officer), opposite party no. 3 (Annexure -
4); order dated 02.01.1989 passed by the
S.O.C.
(Settlement
Officer
Consolidation), Opposite Party No. 2
(Annexure -5) and the judgement and
order dated 22.09.1995 passed by the
D.D.C.(Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation), Opposite Party no. 1
(Annexure No. 9 ) to the writ petition.

2. It has further been prayed for
direction against respondents not to
interfere in the peaceful possession and
use by the petitioner of land of Plot No.
2755 area 3 Acres, situated in Village
Suzauli,
Pargana
Dharampur,
Tehsil
Nanpara, district Baharaich.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 & 3, counsel
for the respondent no. 4 and perused the
record.

4. As per petition's case, Assistant
Record Officer was authorised to grant
Patta i.e. Lease of land on behalf of
L.M.C. (Land Management Committee)
of the village and he did so on 31.12.1970
and Leased out the land of plot no. 2755,
area 3 Acres in favour of the petitioner.
Copy of the Lease-deed is Annexure -1 on
record. Name of the petitioner was
mutated in the revenue record on
20.06.1972 and he became Sirdar of the
land clear from the Annexure -2 of the
writ
petition,
but
when
the
the
Consolidation operation started in the
area, Consolidation Officer has wrongly
struck off his name entered on the land in
dispute from the revenue record.

5. On the other hand, case of the
respondents was that on 04.08.1967 a
Notification was issued by the State
Government under Section 4 of the Indian
Forest Act and it was proposed to declare
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
the land detailed in the Schedule of the
Notification as Reserved Forest including
the land of Plot No. 2824 also and invited
Objection from the general public. Any
Objection against the Notification by any
person was filed, nothing as such is on the
record. Consequences of the Notification
are given in Section 5 of the Indian Forest
Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
where it is provided that after issuance of
the Notification under Section 4, no right
shall be acquired in or over the land
comprised in such Notification except by
Succession or under the grant or Contract
in writing made or entered into by or on
behalf of the Government by some person
in whom such right was vested when the
Notification was issued..

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 4 argued that after the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act
transfer of the right in favour of the
petitioner in the land which was intended
to be declared Reserved Forest, does not
arise. It is clear from the record that
Notification under Section 20 of the Act
was also issued on 30.07.1970 published
in the Gazette on 21.12.1970 where total
1178.77 Acre land including the land of
Plot No. 2824 was delcared as Reserved
Forest from the dated 21.01.1971. This is
not disputed on behalf of the petitioner
and also clear from the copy of the
Notification available on the record.

7. In the present case, it is said that
the land was allotted and Lease-deed was
executed on 31.12.1970 in favour of the
petitioner and also name of the petitioner
was mutated in revenue record under this
Lease
on
20.06.1972.
Consolidation
Operation was started in the area where
land of Plot No. 2824 situated. Under
Section 9 of the C.H. Act on behalf of the
Forest Department, an Application was
moved before the Consolidation Officer
to correct the record and to enter the
Reserved Forest on the land declared as
Reserved Forest including the land of Plot
No. 2824. On behalf of the petitioner
objections were also raised before the
Consolidation Officer that he is recorded
tenure holder on the land of Plot No. 2755
on the basis of the valid Patta granted by
the Land Management Committee. Reply
of the same was submitted on behalf of
the Forest Department that Patta was
illegally executed in favour of the
petitioner by the Assistant Record Officer
(A.R.O.)
on
behalf
of
the
Land
Management Committee regarding the
land of Plot No. 2824 and also name of
the petitioner was wrongly mutated in the
revenue record, in view of the provisions
of Section 5 of the Act. It was further
argued that A.R.O. was never authorised
by the Land Management Committee to
grant such Patta. Powers given to the
Land Management Committee cannot be
further delegated and also the alleged
allotment was never confirmed/approved
by the competent authority. C.O. after
giving opportunity of hearing to both the
parties and perusing the record did not
agree with the case of the petitioner and
rejected his Objection and recorded the
Reserved Forest in the record against the
land declared as such in the Notification
under Sections 4 & 20 of the Act.

8.

Aggrieved
by
this
order,
petitioner filed an Appeal before the
S.O.C. which was dismissed and Revision
was filed before the D.D.C. which too
was dismissed. Learned D.D.C. held that
Notification under Section 4 & 20 of the
Act already issued. Land has been
declared
Reserved
Forest
so
the
Consolidation Courts has no jurisdiction
2 All] Mukhdev V. Collector/D.D.C. & others
675
to interfere in the matter. Aggrieved by
these orders earlier a Writ Petition No.
409 (Conso.) of 1991 filed. Copy of the
order passed in the Writ Petition is
available on the record. This Court did not
entered into the merit of the case in
deciding the writ petition and it was
simply held that as S.O.C. and the D.D.C.
held that Consolidation courts have no
jurisdiction to interfere in the matter so it
was incumbent upon the D.D.C. to
relegate to the parties to the position, they
held at the time of initial proceedings
before the Consolidation Authorities and
matter was remitted to the Court of
Deputy Director of Consolidation to
decide afresh, giving opportunity of
hearing to the parties. Under this order of
the Court matter was again heard by Zila
Adhikari/Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation concerned and by the
impugned
order
dated
22.09.1995,
Revision was again dismissed. Other
Revisions consolidated having the same
issue were also dismissed. Aggrieved by
this order again, this writ petition has
been filed.

9. With reference to the rejoinder
affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner,
learned counsel for the petitioner raised
the arguments that land of Plot No. 2755
area three Acres allotted to him under the
Lease-deed was never included in the
Notification issued under Section 4 & 20
of the Act. This argument has no leg to
stand because record shows and also
admitted
to
petitioner
himself
in
Paragraph 1 of the writ petition that Plot
No. 2824 is the old number of Plot No.
2755 and land of Plot No. 2824 was
included in both the Notifications issued
under Sections 4 & 20 of the Act. Claim
of the petitioner is that land of Plot No.
2824/2755 was allotted to him by the
A.R.O.
on
behalf
of
the
Land
Management Committee on 31.12.1970
so he became tenure holder, Sirdar of the
land in dispute and later on his name was
also mutated in the revenue record
showing him Sirdar of the land. Copy of
the Patta and entry in the Revenue Record
showing him Sirdar of the land of Plot
No. 2755 were also filed along with the
writ petition as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2. It
was further argued that vide Notification
under Section 20 of the Act, land included
in the Notification was to be deemed
Reserved Forest from 21.01.1971 but
before this date already the land of Plot
No. 2755 was allotted to him by the
competent authority and he became
tenure-holder of the same so this land
cannot be deemed declared and notified as
Reserved Forest. As his name was
mutated and entered in the revenue record
so Consolidation Officer was bound to
give effect to this entry and he was not
authorised to order to struck off his name
from the revenue record and to make
entry of Reserved Forest on the land of
Plot No. 2824/2755.

10. Undisputedly, land of Plot No.
2824/2755
was
included
in
the
Notification under Section 4 and 20 of the
Act. For the sake of arguments, if it is
taken correct that there was a valid Patta
of the land of Plot No. 2755 in favour of
the petitioner, even then in the light of
Law laid down by the apex Court in State
of
U.P.
Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, reported in 1996 RD 448.
It is obvious that petitioner was holding
land as a Sirdar and was not vested with
proprietory rights under the Abolition
Act. He was tenure-holder and proprietory
right vested with the State. The state
being the Proprietor of the land under the
Abolition Act, it was justified to issue
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
notification under Section 4 and 20 of the
Act to declare this land as Reserved
Forest. After notification under Section 20
of the Act he will also have no right in the
land of plot no. 2824/2755, even though
he might have acquired any right under
the Patta executed by A.R.O. in his favour
on 31.12.1970 i.e. after the date of
Notification under Section 4 and 20 of the
Act.

11. Learned counsel for the
petitioner raised question that the land in
dispute not covered under Section 3 of the
Act as it was an agricultural land but it
could have been determined on the date of
the Notification under Section 4 of the
Act which was issued on 4th August,
1967 or before when the Notification
under Section 20 of the Act, whether the
land in dispute is agricultural land or not.
No such Objection was raised before the
date of Notification under Section 20 of
the Act. No doubt, it was correctly held
by the Consolidation authorities that they
were not authorized to see the nature of
the land after the Notification under
Section 20 of the Act, even if the
petitioner was having Lease-deed in his
favour of the land of Plot No. 2824/2755
after the Notification under Section 20 his
no right remains in the land in dispute.
Apex Court in this regard held as such
which is as follows:

"Once the notification under Section
20 of the Act declaring the land as
Reserved Forest is published then all
rights in the said and claimed by any
person comes to an end and no longer
available. The Notification is binding on
the Consolidation authorities in the same
way as a decree of the Civil Court.
Objection regarding nature of the land
cannot be raised at this stage. The
Consolidation Authorities were bound by
the Notification which had attained the
finality."

12. As regards the validity of the
Patta, learned Standing Counsel and
counsel for the respondent no. 4 argued
that A.R.O. was never authorized to grant
such Patta on the land for which the State
Government
has
already
issued
Notification
under
Section
4
on
04.08.1967 showing that the land is going
to be declared as Reserved Forest. No
such provision of Law or resolution of the
Land Management Committee authorising
to grant Patta to A.R.O. shown and filed.
Approval after granting alleged Patta was
obtained, as per Rules it is also not clear
from the record. Nowhere it is shown that
such approval was not required in the
matter. Learned Standing Counsel argued
that Revenue Authorities including A.R.O
or supposed to have the knowledge that
the land of Plot No. 2824/2755 has been
intended to be declared as Reserved
Forest vide notification issued under
Section 4 of the Act, issued in the year,
1967. Further, Notification under Section
20 of the Act was also published in
Gazette on 21.12.1970 and it was dated
23rd July, 1970 which is clear from the
record. It shall be presumed again that
A.R.O.
was
knowing
about
this
notification under Section 20 of the Act
published earlier to the date 31.12.1970
when the alleged Patta was executed in
favour of the petitioner. Learned Standing
Counsel argued that only with an
intention to get benefitted to the petitioner
and in his collusion A.R.O. and Lekhpal
of the area have done all these misdeeds
and petitioner is not entitled for any relief
of the same. Arguments of learned
Standing Counsel in the facts and
circumstances of the case cannot be said
2 All] Rajiv Saxena and others V. State of U.P. and others
677
without force. Entry in the revenue record
are open to attack that it was made
fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud rob
a document of all its legal effect and
cannot found a claim to possessory title.
This Patta and entry in the revenue record
were not issued and made in accordance
with the provisions of Law. This have no
legal value. If ignoring the same at the
time of PADTAL and initial stage of the
proceedings to keep the record of right up
to date and correct Consolidation Officer
has made entry of Reserved Forest on the
land in dispute along with other land
shown in the Notification under Section 4
and 20 of the Act, in these circumstances,
the Act of Consolidation Officer cannot
be held illegal and without jurisdiction.
By cancelling the impugned order of three
Consolidation authorities, if again an
entry in the revenue record of the name of
the petitioner is made it will be a wrong
and void entry in the record. No useful
purpose will be served by passing such
order because again Forest Department
will take steps for expunging this entry. It
is established law that even if ground
exists, court can refuse to interfere in writ
jurisdiction with the impugned order, if
there is no miscarriage of justice by the
same.

13.

From
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and taking into
consideration arguments of the parties'
counsel, I am of the view that petitioner
has not approached this court with clean
hands. No interference is required by this
Court in the matter in writ jurisdiction.
Writ Petition has no force, accordingly
the same is hereby dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE FERDINO INACIO REBELLO, C.J.
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 866 of 2010

Rajiv Saxena and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha,
Sri Ankit Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dr. H.N. Tripathi
C.S.C.

Allahabad
High
Court
Rules
1952,
Chapter VIII Rule-5- Special appealarises out from the order passed by
Tribunal under Section 25 of Society
Registration Act-Single Judge allowed
the petition on ground Tribunal lacks
with power of granting interim orderheld-Special appeal not maintainableHowever the direction issued to dispose
of election petition as itself within 2
month.

Held: Para 9

In our opinion, this view correctly
reflects the true scope and intent of Rule
5. A proper reading of the rule and its
intendment is that once an order passed
by a competent tribunal is the subject
matter of an exercise of this Court in its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 and/or 227, then no intra court
appeal would lie. All that is required is
that the judgment, order or award is by a
tribunal, court or statutory arbitrator or
made or purported to be made in the
exercise
or
purported
exercise
of
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act
or under any Central Act with respect to