# Vishwanath Umar Vaisya & Anr v. Additional Commissioner Allahabad & Ors - **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 603 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-07-28 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 1004469 of 2005 - **Bench:** Irshad Ali - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishwanath-umar-vaisya-anr-v-additional-commissioner-allahabad-ors-53613 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Land Revenue Act-Lekhpal added the name of Nagar Palika in reference to the plots without any order of any competent authority-plots and trees and tank were initially recorded under the possession of Ganeshi Deen (Petitioner's 604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ancestor)-the petitioners moved a complaint to the Tehsildar-Sub Divisional Magistrate -rejected the claim in summary manner without considering the report-impugned order-report of Tashildar and Lekhpal that incorporation has been done wrongly by mistake- not incorporated in pursuance to the order of any revenue Officer-impugned order bad-W.P. allowed. Held: There is no rational justification on the part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Commissioner not the consider the report of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal dated 24.6.1998 and due to non consideration of report, the impugned orders suffer from vices of merit and are liable to be set aside. (E-9) Case Law Cited Nil List of Acts Land Revenue Act List of Keywords No rational justification; summary order; without any order of any competent authority Appearance for parties Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Sampurnanand ## Text 7 All. Vishwanath Umar Vaisya & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner Allahabad & Ors. 603 declared to be Seechdar of the disputed numbers, but due to some reason or otherwise, the mutation could not take place, therefore, at the time of lease, the land was shown as Usal. It is settled principle of law that if under the public document, it is certified that there are some orders of the Consolidation Officer then it is seen to be correct and genuine till by producing documentary evidence, it is not shown to be illegal or forged. 16. On the record, there is no material to establish that certified copies produced of the CH form are not genuine, therefore, the determination of the lower court that due to non mutation of land, it comes under the suspicious category, therefore, as per the opinion of the lower court, due to non mutation of land, it comes under the suspicious category and is not legally valid document is an erroneous finding and cannot be accepted in the eyes of law. 17. On the other hand, the respondents, by relying on the document, which is judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 25.10.1969 to be genuine document, therefore, it is accepted as relevant evidence. The petitioner claimed that to save himself from the ceiling proceeding, the mutation was not done by the respondent Nos.3 to 7 but no evidence was produced by the petitioner. The revisional court on the basis of no evidence and certificate produced before the lower court, came to the conclusion that the reasons assigned are not tenable in law. The lower court has not come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence and on the said basis, the proceeding for cancellation of lease was accepted and the lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled. The finding recorded by the revisional court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, therefore, cannot be interfered by this Court. 18. The petitioner has not challenged the finding recorded by the revisional court that the order of the Consolidation Officer is genuine in nature and cannot be ignored. The respondents have filed supplementary affidavit, enclosing the Goswara Register, wherein property has been shown in the name of the respondents. The certified copy produced by the learned counsel for the respondents is taken on record alongwith the photocopy enclosed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. 19. In view of the reasons recorded above, the finding returned by the revisional court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is just and valid, therefore, this Court declines to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the revisional court in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 20. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 603 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 28.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ C No. 1004469 of 2005 Vishwanath Umar Vaisya & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Additional Commissioner Allahabad & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Girish Chandra Sinha Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sampurnanand Issue for consideration Headnotes Land Revenue Act-Lekhpal added the name of Nagar Palika in reference to the plots without any order of any competent authority-plots and trees and tank were initially recorded under the possession of Ganeshi Deen (Petitioner's 604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ancestor)-the petitioners moved a complaint to the Tehsildar-Sub Divisional Magistrate -rejected the claim in summary manner without considering the report-impugned order-report of Tashildar and Lekhpal that incorporation has been done wrongly by mistake- not incorporated in pursuance to the order of any revenue Officer-impugned order bad-W.P. allowed. Held: There is no rational justification on the part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Commissioner not the consider the report of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal dated 24.6.1998 and due to non consideration of report, the impugned orders suffer from vices of merit and are liable to be set aside. (E-9) Case Law Cited Nil List of Acts Land Revenue Act List of Keywords No rational justification; summary order; without any order of any competent authority Appearance for parties Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Sampurnanand (Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.) 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has informed to Sri Sampurnanand, learned counsel for the respondent, who is representing Nagar Palika, Pratapgarh, who has received the notice, but is not present. 4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7.6.2003 and 31.3.2005, contained as Annexures-1 and 2, passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. It is further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to delete the name of respondent No.3 from the revenue records regarding plot No. 1330 of Village Ranjeetpur Chilbila. 5. Factual matrix of the case is that in the year 1879, the district Pratapgarh was carved out from the district Raebareli. In 1872, the first settlement was done, wherein plot Nos.820, 821 and 825 of Village Ranjeetpur, Chilbila were in possession of Janka Das Faqeer and Zamindar of the land was Rani Raghuraj Kunwari. In 1982, the Village Ranjeetpur became popular as Chilbila Bazar. 6. The forefather of the petitioners came to Chilbila and established in Village Ranjeetpur alongwith his son Ganeshi Din acquired the said pond area from the Zamindar for the purpose of charity and built a pakka talab having two ghats for human and one ghat for animals. During the second settlement, the plot Nos.820, 821 and 825 were carved out as a single plot and numbered as plot No.1279 having its area as 2-17-16. The construction and trees were recorded in revenue records. The 7 All. Vishwanath Umar Vaisya & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner Allahabad & Ors. 605 said plots and trees and tank were recorded under the possession of Ganeshi Deen. 7. In the third settlement, the plot No.1279 of second settlement was renumbered as plot No.392 having an area of 3-8-17. On 17.12.1910, huge property of Durga was partitioned through family settlement. After abolition of zamindari, the sub urban area of Ranjeetpur Chilbila was included in Nagar Palika, Pratapgarh. A Lekhpal added the name of Nagar Palika in reference to the said plots without any order of any competent authority. The petitioners came to know about the aforesaid in the year 1998. On 24.6.1998, the petitioners moved a complaint to the Tehsildar, who on the basis of complaint, made an enquiry and submitted his report to Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar. 8. The petitioners moved an application under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh for rectifying the mistake and removing the name of respondent No.3 from the records in reference of the said plot. The said application was registered as Case No.88/39/15/12//5/29/24 and later on transferred to the respondent No.2 for disposal, who disposed of the application of the petitioners by way of passing a summary order on surmises and conjectures, it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. The petitioners preferred a revision against the order dated 7.6.2003 before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was later on transferred to the respondent No.1 for disposal. 10. The respondent No.1, passed an order, confirming the findings of respondent No.2, thereby the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court. 11. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a report was called for from the Tehsildar and Lekhpal of the concerned area who submitted a report on 24.6.1998 that the incorporation has been done wrongly by mistake and has not incorporated in pursuance to the order of any revenue Officer. Submission is that without considering the relevant material on record before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Commissioner, they have failed to pass a justified order in law. 12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned orders are just and valid and do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 13. After having heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court on the report of the Tehsildar and Annexure-10 (page96) of the paper book, which clearly states that the Gata No.1330 in the khatauni, the land is registered as tank and adjacent to the tank, old temple and dharamshala is situated and there are mahua and peepal trees. It has also been reported that no order whatsoever has been passed by any revenue authority for incorporation of the land belonging to the Nagar Palika. 15. The Sub Divisional Magistrate while deciding the issue, has rejected the claim in summary manner without considering the report submitted by the Tehsildar and Lekhpal. The Commissioner has also failed to appreciate that the 606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES incorporation in the name of Nagar Palika is forged and fabricated and ignored the report of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal dated 24.6.1998 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition), therefore, the impugned orders suffer from apparent illegality and are liable to be set aside. 16. There is no rational justification on the part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Commissioner not the consider the report of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal dated 24.6.1998 and due to non consideration of report, the impugned orders suffer from vices of merit and are liable to be set aside. 17. On overall consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 7.6.2003 and 31.3.2005 are not justifiable in law, therefore, the same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 18. It is provided that the respondent No.2 shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law, taking into consideration the report of the Tehsildar dated 24.6.1998, if possible, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 606 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 31.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ C No. 3000108 of 1998 Deen Bandhu & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Addl. Commissioner J Faizabad & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: A.R.Khan, Aasif Razzaque Khan Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Issue for consideration Impugned orders and inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the action of the District Revenue Authorities by which they have proceeded to take possession and allot the same. Headnotes Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976sec. 10 (2), 31, 3 (2) and (3)- land only recorded as irrigated in khasra 1378 fasli, 1379 fasli- but impugned order wrongly held that the entire land is irrigated-mere entry in khasra of 1381 fasli and 1372 fasli about the installation of the government tubewell do not mean that the land belonging to the original tenure holder is irrigated -the land is neither irrigated nor is capable of yielding two crops -these evidence have been ignored-prescribed authority misread and misinterpreted the provisions of Section 31 (2) of the Act 1975-determination of surplus land could only be held within two yearsimpugned orders are illegal and invalid. W.P. allowed. (E9) Case Law Cited Nil List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 List of Keywords Surplus land; irrigated land; unirrigated land.