# State of Rajasthan and others v. Daya

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1211
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-08-19
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No.5337 of 2013
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-rajasthan-and-others-v-daya-42659
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 227- Mutation
order-passed by Tehsildar-based upon
patta alleged to be passed prior to 32
years-absolutely
no
explanation
regarding complete-silence for such long
spell of time-order passed by Tehsildarset-a-side-with
direction
to
initiate
disciplinary proceeding against erring
officer-any
proceeding
before
any
authority stand automatically quasheddamage for unauthorise possession- for
such period imposed-payable.

Held: Para-4
Accordingly, it is directed that in case
petitioner is in possession of the Gaon
Sabha land, he
must forthwith be
dispossessed. No further proceedings in
respect of entry of the name of petitioner
shall be taken as no patta was granted in
1975-76 to the petitioner. Exercising
powers under Article 227 of Constitution
of
India
mutation
order
dated
27(28).06.2008
is
set
aside.
Any
proceeding pending anywhere in respect
of the said plots before any of the courts
below shall not be proceeded with. Writ
of prohibition in this regard is issued.

Case Law discussed:
2012 (3) AWC 2226

## Text

3 All] Ram Yash Vs. State of U.P. and Ors
1211
State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya
Lal & others, 2011(2) SCC 429.

6. Thus in the absence of any
statutory provision and also in view of the
admitted
factual
position
that
the
petitioner's initial recruitment was not in
accordance with the constitutional scheme
enshrined under Article 16 of the
Constitution,
the
relief
sought
by
petitioner cannot be granted.

7. The writ petition lacks merit.
Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.08.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Misc. Single No.5337 of 2013

Ram Yash

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mata Prasad Yadav
Sri Brijesh Yadav 'Vijay'

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Azad Khan

Constitution of India, Art. 227- Mutation
order-passed by Tehsildar-based upon
patta alleged to be passed prior to 32
years-absolutely
no
explanation
regarding complete-silence for such long
spell of time-order passed by Tehsildarset-a-side-with
direction
to
initiate
disciplinary proceeding against erring
officer-any
proceeding
before
any
authority stand automatically quasheddamage for unauthorise possession- for
such period imposed-payable.

Held: Para-4
Accordingly, it is directed that in case
petitioner is in possession of the Gaon
Sabha land, he
must forthwith be
dispossessed. No further proceedings in
respect of entry of the name of petitioner
shall be taken as no patta was granted in
1975-76 to the petitioner. Exercising
powers under Article 227 of Constitution
of
India
mutation
order
dated
27(28).06.2008
is
set
aside.
Any
proceeding pending anywhere in respect
of the said plots before any of the courts
below shall not be proceeded with. Writ
of prohibition in this regard is issued.

Case Law discussed:
2012 (3) AWC 2226
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah
Khan, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned
counsel for petitioner and Sri Azad Khan,
learned counsel for respondent No.5,
Gaon Sabha.

2. Petitioner has come up with a
fantastic case to the effect that on
20.11.1975, some patta was proposed to
be granted to him by the Gaon Sabha of
village Bhagwaria and the proposal was
approved by the S.D.O. on 01.01.1976.
He filed application for mutation on the
basis of the said patta on 19.12.2007 (i.e.
after 32 years) before Deputy Collector,
Amethi. It is inconceivable that in case
some patta had been executed in favour of
the petitioner in the year 1975-76, his
name would not have been entered in the
revenue records immediately. There is
absolutely no explanation of silence of 32
years. It is very surprising that Tehsildar
Amethi on 27 (or 28) June, 2008 passed
mutation order in favour of petitioner.
Copy of that order has not been annexed.
Against the said order Suraj Prasad and
others filed revision (Case No.10/22,
Sarju Prasad (or Suraj Prasad Vs. Ram
1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Yash) which was dismissed in default by
C.R.O., Sultanpur on 13.10.2009. Not
being aware of that, Suraj Prasad and four
others filed writ petition against the
petitioner
complaining
that
he
had
usurped the Gaon Sabha property, which
was numbered as Misc. Single No.2408 of
2010, Suraj Prasad and four others Vs.
State of U.P. and others. It was disposed
of on 28.04.2010 directing the Collector
to dispose of the revision expeditiously.
After
passing
of
the
order
dated
28.04.2010 by this court, the C.R.O.
through order dated 27.02.2013 set aside
its earlier order dismissing the revision in
default and fixed the date for hearing of
the revision. The said order has been
challenged through this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has
stated that in the earlier writ petition,
review petition has been filed. Be that as
it may, it is more than evident that
petitioner has usurped the Gaon Sabha
land comprised in Plot Nos.69 (new 38),
105 (new 64), 493 (new 176), 224 (new
333). It is impossible that if patta had
been allotted in 1975, petitioner would
have remained silent until 2007. In this
regard, paras 22 to 27 of the judgment
reported in U.P. Awas Evam Vkas
Parishad, Lucknow Vs. Lajja Ram,
2012, (3) AWC 2226 are quoted below:

"The provision of presumption is
provided under Section 114 of Evidence
Act, which contains some illustrations
also. The said section along with
illustrations (e) & (f) is quoted below:

"114. Court may presume existence
of certain facts.- The court may presume
the existence of any fact which it thinks
likely to have happened, regard being had
to the common course of natural events,
human conduct and public and private
business in their relation to the facts of the
particular case.

The Court may presume-

(e) that judicial and official acts have
been regularly performed;

(f) that the common course of
business has been followed in particular
case;"

If the presumption of entry in favour
of plaintiff's father for four or seven years
is to be presumed then presumption of
correctness of discontinuance of entry for
40 years will also have to be drawn.

Life of law has not been logic, it has
been experience (O.W. Holmes). This
principle applies with greater force on
presumptions and human conduct. I have
heard and decided hundreds of matters
pertaining to agricultural land and my
experience is that Gaon Sabha property
has been looted by unscrupulous persons
on a very large scale by manipulation in
the revenue records and forging of orders
particularly of consolidation courts. The
modus operendi is that a very old entry or
copy of order is produced like a rabbit
from the hat of a magician and its
resumption or recording is sought.

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.1132 of 2011, Jagpal Singh and others
Vs. State of Punjab, in Para-20 observed
as follows:

"20. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was
widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha
lands either with connivance of the
Consolidation Authorities, or by forging
3 All] Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1213
orders purported to have been passed by
Consolidation Officers in the long past so
that they may not be compared with the
original revenue record showing the land
as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue
records had been weeded out. Similar
may have been the practice in other
States. The time has now come to review
all these orders by which the common
village land has been grabbed by such
fraudulent practices."

In Dina Nath Vs. State of U.P. 2009
(108) R.D. 321, I held that not making
any efforts for getting the name of the
petitioner entered in the revenue records on
the basis of alleged patta by Gaon Sabha for
29 years proved that no patta was executed. I
issued directions to all the Collectors to
reopen all such cases where names of private
persons were entered in the revenue records
over Gaon Sabha land. Matter was carried to
the Supreme Court in the form of S.L.P.
(Civil) C.C.4398 of 2010 Dina Nath Vs.
State. The Supreme Court decided the matter
on 29.03.2010 and quoted almost my entire
judgment in inverted commas and approved
the same.

Accordingly, it is held that whenever a
person comes along with the case that Gaon
Sabha land was allotted to him or some order
was passed by any Court in his favour
declaring his right over Gaon Sabha land or
some revenue entry was in his favour long
before but during last several years his name
is not recorded in the revenue records then an
irrebuttable presumption amounting to almost
conclusive proof must be drawn to the effect
that allotment order or entry is forged."

4. Accordingly, it is directed that in
case petitioner is in possession of the
Gaon Sabha land, he must forthwith be
dispossessed. No further proceedings in
respect of entry of the name of petitioner
shall be taken as no patta was granted in
1975-76 to the petitioner. Exercising
powers under Article 227 of Constitution
of
India
mutation
order
dated
27(28).06.2008
is
set
aside.
Any
proceeding pending anywhere in respect
of the said plots before any of the courts
below shall not be proceeded with. Writ
of prohibition in this regard is issued.

5. For the period for which
petitioner has illegally remained in
possession, damages at the rate of
Rs.7000/- per hectare per year shall also
be recovered from him like arrears of land
revenue.

6. Disciplinary proceedings against
the Tehsildar who passed the order dated
27(28).06.2008 shall at once be initiated
after suspension.

7. Writ Petition is disposed of
accordingly.

8. Office is directed to supply a copy
of this order free of cost to Sri Vinay
Bhushan, learned Additional C.S.C. and
Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for Gaon
Sabha respondent No.5.

9. Office shall also send copy of this
order to the Chief Revenue Officer
(C.R.O.), Sultanpur.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 5480 of 2013

Ram Chandra & Ors.
 ...Petitioners