# Smt. Ram Murti Devi v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 915
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-09-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48732 of 2008
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ram-murti-devi-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41268
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Principle of natural justice-long term of
entry
in
revenue
record-expunged
without
issuing
show
cause
notice
without giving opportunity of hearing to
the
petitioner-only
reason
disclosed
entry to be forged one-even then it can
not
be
cancelled
without
giving
opportunity to the affected person.

Held: Para 5

Admittedly, in the present case, the
name
of
the
petitioner
was
found
entered in the revenue record since
1966, the petitioner claims to have
purchased the land in dispute from one
Sri Ganga Vijai Bahadur, against the
registered sale deed dated 27.6.1966
and, therefore, before expunging the
name of the petitioner from the revenue
record, opportunity of hearing must be
given. It is only the allegation that the
entry made in the name of the petitioner
in the revenue record is forged. The
allegation may be wrong also and is
rebuttable.
Such
allegation
can
be
proved wrong only when the person is
provided
opportunity.
Therefore,
the
petitioner must be given opportunity to
prove his title towards the land in
dispute
by
adducing
the
necessary
evidences and to rebut the allegation
that the entry was forged. Admittedly, in
the present case, the petitioner has not
been provided opportunity of hearing.
Thus, there is a clear violation of
principle of natural justice.
Case law discussed:
2005 (1) CRC 422; AIR 1991 SC 909.

## Text

3 All] Smt. Ram Murti Devi V. State of U.P. and others
915
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48732 of 2008

Smt. Ram Murti Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Gulab Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Principle of natural justice-long term of
entry
in
revenue
record-expunged
without
issuing
show
cause
notice
without giving opportunity of hearing to
the
petitioner-only
reason
disclosed
entry to be forged one-even then it can
not
be
cancelled
without
giving
opportunity to the affected person.

Held: Para 5

Admittedly, in the present case, the
name
of
the
petitioner
was
found
entered in the revenue record since
1966, the petitioner claims to have
purchased the land in dispute from one
Sri Ganga Vijai Bahadur, against the
registered sale deed dated 27.6.1966
and, therefore, before expunging the
name of the petitioner from the revenue
record, opportunity of hearing must be
given. It is only the allegation that the
entry made in the name of the petitioner
in the revenue record is forged. The
allegation may be wrong also and is
rebuttable.
Such
allegation
can
be
proved wrong only when the person is
provided
opportunity.
Therefore,
the
petitioner must be given opportunity to
prove his title towards the land in
dispute
by
adducing
the
necessary
evidences and to rebut the allegation
that the entry was forged. Admittedly, in
the present case, the petitioner has not
been provided opportunity of hearing.
Thus, there is a clear violation of
principle of natural justice.
Case law discussed:
2005 (1) CRC 422; AIR 1991 SC 909.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. By means of present petition, the
petitioner is challenging the order of the
Additional
Commissioner,
Kanpur
Division, Kanpur dated 15.2.2008 by
which the revision was filed by the
petitioner against the order of the
Collector, Kannauj dated 6.5.2000 has
been confirmed. By the order dated
6.5.2000, the name of the petitioner from
the revenue record has been expunged in
respect of the land in dispute.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted
that
the
petitioner
has
purchased
the
land
in
dispute
on
27.6.1966 from Zamindar Sri Ganga Vijai
Bahadur against the registered sale deed
dated 27.6.1966. The copy of the sale
deed is Annexure-1 to the writ petition,
and on the basis of the sale deed, the
name of the petitioner has been recorded
in the revenue record. He submitted that
without giving any notice or any
opportunity of hearing of any manner
whatsoever the name of the petitioner
from the revenue record has been
expunged which was recorded in the year
1966. He submitted that the Collector,
Kannauj has arrived to an erroneous
conclusion that the entry in the revenue
record is forged and, therefore, the
petitioner
is
not
entitled
for
the
opportunity of hearing. The view of the
Additional
Commissioner,
Kanpur
Division, Kanpur in the revision is also
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
illegal that no opportunity is required to
be given where the entry in the revenue
record is found to be forged. He submitted
that this Court in the case of Chaturgun
and others Versus State of U.P. and
others, reported in [2005 (1) CRC 422]
on a consideration of decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh
Judicial Doctors Action Committee
Versus Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani,
reported in AIR 1991 SC 909 and the
various other Supreme Court judgements
held that before expunging the name of
the person from the revenue record whose
name is found recorded since last several
years without giving opportunity of
hearing, is wholly unjustified.

3. Learned Standing Counsel
submitted that let the matter be remanded
back to the Collector, Kannauj to decide
the matter afresh after giving opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner.

4. In the case of Chaturgun and
others Versus State of U.P. and others
(Supra) this Court has considered the
various decisions of the Supreme Court
and of this Court, including the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttar
Pradesh
Judicial
Doctors
Action
Committee Versus Dr. B. Sheetal
Nandwani (Supra) and has held that
before expunging the entry from the
revenue record after the long period
opportunity
of
hearing
should
be
provided.

5. Admittedly, in the present case,
the name of the petitioner was found
entered in the revenue record since 1966,
the petitioner claims to have purchased
the land in dispute from one Sri Ganga
Vijai Bahadur, against the registered sale
deed dated 27.6.1966 and, therefore,
before expunging the name of the
petitioner from the revenue record,
opportunity of hearing must be given. It is
only the allegation that the entry made in
the name of the petitioner in the revenue
record is forged. The allegation may be
wrong also and is rebuttable. Such
allegation can be proved wrong only
when the person is provided opportunity.
Therefore, the petitioner must be given
opportunity to prove his title towards the
land in dispute by adducing the necessary
evidences and to rebut the allegation that
the entry was forged. Admittedly, in the
present case, the petitioner has not been
provided opportunity of hearing. Thus,
there is a clear violation of principle of
natural justice.

6. In the result, writ petition is
allowed. The order of the Additional
Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur
dated 15.2.2008 in revision no. 30 of 2007
and the order of the Collector, Kannauj
dated 6.5.2008 in suit no. 84 of 2000,
State Versus Shiv Balak and others are
quashed. The matter is remanded back to
the Collector, Kannauj to decide the
matter afresh after giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, The petitioner is
directed to appear before the Collector,
Kannauj along with certified copy of the
order on 29.9.2008. The Collector,
Kannauj either on the same day or on any
other
day
issue
a
notice
giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to
adduce the necessary evidences and after
hearing the petitioner decide the matter
expeditiously. There shall be a status-Quo
till the decision by the, Collector, Kannauj
as on today.
Petition allowed.
---------
3 All] Shishu Pal Singh and others V. P.A./Upper Ziladhikari and others
917
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.09.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4283 of 1992

Shishu Pal Singh and others...Petitioners
Versus
Prescribed Authority/Upper Ziladhikari
and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Y.S. Saxena
Sri Manoj Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land
Holdings Act 1960, Section 10(2)-surplus
land-after death of father the petitioner
filed
objection
claiming
the
land
purchased by them from their individual
source of income-not to be clubbed with
the unit of their father-being minor
cannot filed objection-rejected by the
prescribed
authority
and
appellate
authority shifted the onus upon the
petitioner
to
prove
their
separate
ostensibility of holdings-ignoring their
uncontroverted
oral
evidence-heldillegal.

Held: Para 8

The petitioners gave their statements
that they are all residing separately.
Mere non production of ration-card
cannot justify an inference that the
statements
given
on
oath
by
the
petitioners
were
false
unless
some
evidence is produced by the State to
show the said averment to be incorrect.
From a bare reading of the appellate
order, it is evident that it has solely
proceeded on the assumption as if the
onus lie upon the petitioners to show
that the holding was separate, ostensibly
in their names and did not belong to
their father Het Ram Singh. The basic
approach of the appellate authority in
the present matter is clearly illegal and
contrary to law.
Case law discussed:
1979 AWC 23.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manoj Misra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The writ petition is directed
against the order dated 30.3.1991 passed
by Prescribed Authority/Addl. District
Magistrate under Section 10 (2) of U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings
Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act') and the or er dated 29.1.1992 passed
by
the
Commissioner,
Moradabad
Division, Moradabad, dismissing the
appeal of the petitioner.

3. A notice under section 10 (2) of
the Act was served upon petitioners father
Het Ram Singh on 12.3.1988 to show
cause as to why his holding of 17.40 acres
be not declared surplus. He filed objection
on 24.3.1988. During the continuance of
the said proceedings before the prescribed
authority, Sri Het Ram Singh died and the
petitioners were substituted as his legal
heirs. The petitioners filed sale-deeds
executed
separately
in
their
name
showing that they were all major having
their own income and have purchased the
land independently and. therefore, their
holdings cannot be included with the
holding of their father. The prescribed
authority
however,
rejected
their
objection and held that except of the saledeeds no evidence was produced to show
that the sons were separately residing
from the father and their holdings were