Saturday, May 17, 2008
Curses of Hindu Religion
CURSES OF HINDU RELIGION
1. Polytheism (33 crore Gods & Goddesses):
The Hindus, who always brag of believing in the existence of one God, in fact, believe in the existence of crores of Gods and Goddesses. While propitiating (appeasing) any one of them, the Hindus claim that the remaining 33 crore Gods and Goddesses are subservient to Him/Her. This is self-contradictory and only indicates our lack of faith in one God. Dendrolatry in the form of worship of trees like peepal, banyan, banana, tulsi and jand etc. and zoolatry in the form of worship of animals as gods only exposes fickleness of our minds.
As if and not satisfied with such a big army of Gods, the Hindus also throng to religious places of other faiths like gurudwaras and mazaars/peers, so much so that many of the mazaars/peers are maintained and looked after by the Hindus only. It is beyond doubt that most of the Muslim peers are flourishing because of Hindus only, and will be shut if Hindus stop visiting them. Hindus are always eager to appease the other communities (Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc.) by following their customs/rituals. We may justify it as secularism but actually it reflects our wavering faith in our own Gods and Goddesses. On the contrary, rarely is a follower of other faiths seen in our temples or practicing our rituals.
Lack of faith in one deity has seriously affected unity among the Hindus and has lead to disorganization and weakening of the Hinduism. On thousands of occasions, Hindus have miserably failed to protect the respect of their Gods and Goddesses and religious places.
2. Lack of centralised temporal authority:
Unlike other religions, the Hindus have no centralised authority to control & regulate their religious affairs. The four Mathas established by the Shankracharya in 8th century have not proved to be really effective. This makes us unorganised and leads to lack of consensus on trivial issues like dates of Hindu festivals. Our religious scholars seldom agree on single date for festivals leading to celebration of festivals on different dates. This dilutes the devotion & enthusiasm and also impels a sense of ridicule for our religion in the minds of others. This is solely because of non-availability of a centralised religious command.
3. Non-Violence:
The philosophy of non-violence has made us cowards and the Hindus on the excuse of non-violence do not even protect their own person & property, what to talk of common interest. The Hindus are not ready to bear pain involved in fighting for their own rights and always look towards others to fight for them. This philosophy has made us cowards to such an extent that we did not retaliate even the invaders who attacked us in our homeland. Just a handful of Muslim invaders attacked us, captured us, slew us, converted many to Islam, outraged the modesty of our women, broke our temples and used every possible atrocity to destroy Hinduism but the philosophy of non-violence made the Hindus surrender everywhere.
The submissive nature of the Hindus is evident even today. Even a single person of other faiths like Muslim, Sikh etc. would assert himself proudly and defend his religion whereas a large crowd of Hindus dare not do that even if it is a question of honour of the whole community.
4. Idealism:
The philosophy of idealism also proved a bane for the Hindus. On numerous occasions, brave Hindu rulers proved their superiority over the enemy but, out of idealism, instead of finishing him they showed compassion to the captured enemy and let him go scot-free, who later became a threat to them. On the contrary, the enemy never committed such foolishness. He did not miss any occasion to deceive and destroy the Hindus whenever got a chance. It was true not only in the medieval period when Muslims invaded India but in modern times as well. The delusion of slogan of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai in 1962, releasing of 90000 Pakistani POWs just for international acclaim while leaving our own POWs to languish in enemy captivity till today and returning the captured areas to Pakistan under the Shimla Agreement in 1971, Lahore Declaration consummating in Kargil episode in 1999 are some glaring examples of our hollow idealism, diplomatic immaturity and foolishness. Gained in the battlefield by our brave soldiers was always lost on the table by our myopic leaders.
5. Secularism:
Secularism (or pseudo-secularism?) has done immeasurable harm to Hinduism. The selfish Hindu leadership, both religious & political, is always eager to compromise the interest of Hindus for transient gains, in the name of secularism, without realizing the harm caused to the religion in the long run. Is this secularism not applicable to Muslims? Never does a Muslim ever talk of respect to the other faiths. The Muslim invaders exercised every atrocity to finish the Hindu race. They believed in dar-ul-Islam (converting the whole human race into Islamism). The only language they know is jehad and for them jehad denotes just killing qafirs i.e. everyone who does not follow Islam. The objective of dar-ul-Islam is very much alive even today. The whole world today is under the perpetual threat of Muslim fundamentalism.
It is only and only the leaders belonging to Hindu race who are the thekedars of secularism at the cost of their own faith. If there were Jai Chands in medieval times, there are Laloos, Paswans, Mulayams, Arjuns and Advanis in this era, who, for their momentary selfish motives, are selling the interests of the Hindus in the name of secularism without realizing the irreparable loss being caused by them to their community. Gandhi’s secularism always aimed at destruction of Hindus at the hands of Muslims. Paswan’s secularism advocates a Muslim Chief-Minister in Bihar. Arjun’s secularism believes in distorting our history. Numerous such pseudo secularists have always been active to destroy the Hindus.
Mulayam’s secularism impels him declare holiday in U.P. on last Friday of Ramjan. Mulayam, Pasvan and even Nitish Kumar throwing Iftaar parties to Muslims and wearing muslim caps on their heads shamelessly is the burning example of pseudo secularism.
The irony is that their secularism erupts only when the interests of the non-Hindus are involved. Thousands of Hindus being murdered in Mopla and Naokhali riots before partition, lakhs of Hindus being butchered and crores suffering displacement during partition in 1947 did not make a dint on any of these secularists. Thousands of Hindus being slain in Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir and lakhs being rendered refugees in their own motherland did not shake the soul of the secularists. Conversion of Bangladesh from a secularist to an Islamic nation in 1979 did not perturb these secularists nor did the planned elimination of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan caused qualms of conscience to them. The kar-sewaks burnt alive in Godhra doesn’t make any difference to these secularists, but its reaction in the form of Gujarat riots is termed as a “blot” on humanity and the heads of Bajpais and Advanis are “lowered in shame”. Muslim invaders looted & demolished thousands of temples and erected mosques over them, but redeeming Ram Temple from underneath Babri mosque is the “blackest day” in the life of secularist Advani. Time and again Commissions have been constituted to convict, by hook or crook, the accused of the 1984 Delhi riots and 2002 Gujarat riots even after their acquittal by the courts of law. On the other hand, terrorists like Wassan Singh Zaffarwal and Jagjit Singh Chouhan deserving severe punishment have gone scot-free for want of proof and it did not impel any secularist to deplore such acquittal and seek re-trial.
Mushrooming madrasas in the country indulging in anti-India activities does not worry these secularists but they have the audacity to term the activities of RSS and VHP as anti-nation. For them, religion-based reservation for the Muslims in AMU is not an anti-national act, but the alleged discrimination in relief-distribution to the quake-hit in Bhuj surely perturbs these secularists. 5% reservation for Muslims in A.P. awaiting emulation by Bihar and many other State Governments is another burning example of their secularism. Pampering the Muslims at the cost of the Hindus is an unpardonable sin, which cannot be forgiven by any rational and nationalist Indian. It is nothing but a political gimmickry for appeasement of Muslims to garner their votes, which has rendered the Hindus orphans in their own land. The coming generations of ours are being recklessly thrown to a disadvantageous position. The virtual slavery is inevitable for us.
6. Casteism
The casteism, too, has proved a bane for the Hindus. The exploitation of the lower castes at the hands of the privileged ones fomented hatred amongst the denizens of the country and weakened the Hindu race. Further, the Hindus being divided on caste lines in the past, the responsibility to fight and protect the country from foreign invaders was solely put on the Kshatriyas. This gave the others an excuse to shy away from the duty to sacrifice for the country. Whenever there was any attack, it was the Kshatriyas who were to face the brunt. Many a time their short number or non-availability of fighter-Kshatriyas lead to their defeat in wars.
7. Credulousness:
The Hindus are credulous by nature. They simply believed what others said without suspecting the ulterior designs of the enemy. There were occasions when the idealist Hindu rulers sincerely honoured a treaty or ceasefire in war but the crook enemy took undue advantage of their credulousness and captured them.
8. Liberalism/Indifferent Attitude:
Liberalism, too, has played a destructive role in Hindu religion. The pictures and names of Hindu Gods & Goddesses are freely used as mean trademarks and trade names. Ganesh Bidi, Ganesh Chhaap Khaini, Durga Lottery etc. by the Hindus themselves certainly lowers the respect for Hindu Gods in the mind of others. Taking a cue, the foreign companies dare to print the pictures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses on such mean things as undergarments, shoes and commodes. Would they dare to do the same with the deities of other faiths?
Making films on Hindu Gods & Goddesses causes irreparable harm to the faith. Human beings personifying Hindu Gods & Goddesses, picturization of vulgar scenes/songs in temples, showing Hindu Gods & Goddesses smoking in ad films only lowers their respect in the eyes of people.
TV serials like Ramayana, Maha Bharata, Jai Hanuman, Sri Krishna etc., where human beings play the divine role for money, encourage commercialisation of the Hindu ecclesiastical domain. Even in Jagrans, the bhaints are based on film tunes that certainly spoils the sanctity. The pictures of Hindu Gods & Goddesses on calendars, in newspapers and magazines being trampled under feet in streets definitely lower the respect in the mind of others. On the contrary, ban on assuming the role of Sikh Gurus or Muslim Prophet maintains reverence. Inviting censure of Sikhs by films like “Sava Lakh Se Ek Ladaoon”, and “Jo Bole So Nihal” are live examples of the concern of the Sikh community for their gurus, which regretfully is missing in the attitude of the Hindus.The beggars wearing masks of Hindu Gods and posing as Gods for begging in bazaars & streets definitely reduces obeisance for the Gods.
10. Lack of discipline and non-availability of facilities in temples, inns and places of pilgrimage:
Lack of discipline in Hindu temples and places of pilgrimage is also a serious stigma. The managing bodies of the Hindu religious places and the pandas are largely unscrupulous & selfish and are only interested in minting money. The ashrams and dharamshalas are used as enterprises of profit. On the contrary, the ample availability of food, shelter and services in gurudwaras certainly inspires a sense of security & respect in the mind of visitors. This has resulted in the taking over of the management of several Hindu shrines and places of pilgrimage by government. Could any government dare to do the same with a mosque or a gurudwara or a church?
Males and females bathing together at places of Hindu pilgrimage or in sacred rivers/ponds become objects of sensuousness only. Lack of conveniences, defecating and defiling the surroundings by the visitors present a nauseating look. On the contrary, strict discipline is observed in gurudwaras, which certainly helps in maintaining reverence for these places.
11. Glorification of invaders’ monuments:
It is a well known historical fact that the Muslim invaders exercised every atrocity on the native Hindus. They attacked us. They looted wealth, slaughtered innocent people, converted Hindus to Islam at the point of sword. They kidnapped our women and raped them with pride. They broke temples and erected mosques over them. They even decked idols of those temples in the stairs to humiliate Hindus. Famous historian P.N. Oak claims that the so called Muslim monuments in India were originally the Hindu buildings. The Muslim invaders plundered them, captured them, broke them, sacrileged them and converted them into Muslim monuments. The Hindus, instead of considering them a stigma on the national honour take pride in calling them national monuments. Millions of rupees are spent on their maintenance. Some have been given the status of heritage buildings. A community of self honour would never accept such humiliation like this.
12. Unhealthy custom of marriage:
There are many unhealthy and despicable customs amongst the Hindus. For example, in almost all the southern states of the country and parts of some western states like Maharashtra, Gujrat and Rajsthan, there is permission of a person marrying his niece, like sister’s daughter (bhanji), cousin like maternal uncle’s (mama) or paternal aunt’s (bhooa) daughter. This is marriage within consanguinity. Though marriage within consanguinity is against Hindu marriage Act, but the custom overrides the statutory provisions. This weakens the uniformity of the custom at national level and makes us a subject of ridicule by others.
13. Leaderless community:
A common Hindu belongs to leaderless community, as their own (Hindu) leaders are not for them, they are for others. I have seen Sikh leadership fighting collectively on different issues like Delhi riots, turban issue in France, kirpaan issue in Sweden, Santa-Banta (ridiculing cartoons) issue in Mumbai, turban-scanning issue in America. All the Sikh leaders irrespective of their political affiliation fought it collective. Similarly, Prophet Mohammed’s picture (cartoon) in a Danish newspaper attracted protest from Muslims all over the world. Conversely, you can amply see Hindu leaders neutralising efforts of their own brothers doing something for Hindu welfare and blaming of violating secularism. It is nothing but a cheap effort to earn momentary & transient acclaim from others. On the contrary, the leaders of other faiths fighting collective, forgetting their political differences, definitely fetches them tangible results.
The above-mentioned points prove that the Hindus are dead race with impotent leaders. They are no better than sheep and goats. They take pride in being driven like cattle by others. The selfish Hindu leaders see nothing beyond their myopic ends. The meek & selfish Hindus are sure to extinct one day.
Deploring earnestly,
Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 139, High court, Allahabad
H.I.G.-203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem Sarai, Allahabad
Phone No. 0532-2637720, 2436451
Mobile-919415284843, 919935787120, 919451181638, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, yogrekha@yahoo.co.in
1. Polytheism (33 crore Gods & Goddesses):
The Hindus, who always brag of believing in the existence of one God, in fact, believe in the existence of crores of Gods and Goddesses. While propitiating (appeasing) any one of them, the Hindus claim that the remaining 33 crore Gods and Goddesses are subservient to Him/Her. This is self-contradictory and only indicates our lack of faith in one God. Dendrolatry in the form of worship of trees like peepal, banyan, banana, tulsi and jand etc. and zoolatry in the form of worship of animals as gods only exposes fickleness of our minds.
As if and not satisfied with such a big army of Gods, the Hindus also throng to religious places of other faiths like gurudwaras and mazaars/peers, so much so that many of the mazaars/peers are maintained and looked after by the Hindus only. It is beyond doubt that most of the Muslim peers are flourishing because of Hindus only, and will be shut if Hindus stop visiting them. Hindus are always eager to appease the other communities (Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc.) by following their customs/rituals. We may justify it as secularism but actually it reflects our wavering faith in our own Gods and Goddesses. On the contrary, rarely is a follower of other faiths seen in our temples or practicing our rituals.
Lack of faith in one deity has seriously affected unity among the Hindus and has lead to disorganization and weakening of the Hinduism. On thousands of occasions, Hindus have miserably failed to protect the respect of their Gods and Goddesses and religious places.
2. Lack of centralised temporal authority:
Unlike other religions, the Hindus have no centralised authority to control & regulate their religious affairs. The four Mathas established by the Shankracharya in 8th century have not proved to be really effective. This makes us unorganised and leads to lack of consensus on trivial issues like dates of Hindu festivals. Our religious scholars seldom agree on single date for festivals leading to celebration of festivals on different dates. This dilutes the devotion & enthusiasm and also impels a sense of ridicule for our religion in the minds of others. This is solely because of non-availability of a centralised religious command.
3. Non-Violence:
The philosophy of non-violence has made us cowards and the Hindus on the excuse of non-violence do not even protect their own person & property, what to talk of common interest. The Hindus are not ready to bear pain involved in fighting for their own rights and always look towards others to fight for them. This philosophy has made us cowards to such an extent that we did not retaliate even the invaders who attacked us in our homeland. Just a handful of Muslim invaders attacked us, captured us, slew us, converted many to Islam, outraged the modesty of our women, broke our temples and used every possible atrocity to destroy Hinduism but the philosophy of non-violence made the Hindus surrender everywhere.
The submissive nature of the Hindus is evident even today. Even a single person of other faiths like Muslim, Sikh etc. would assert himself proudly and defend his religion whereas a large crowd of Hindus dare not do that even if it is a question of honour of the whole community.
4. Idealism:
The philosophy of idealism also proved a bane for the Hindus. On numerous occasions, brave Hindu rulers proved their superiority over the enemy but, out of idealism, instead of finishing him they showed compassion to the captured enemy and let him go scot-free, who later became a threat to them. On the contrary, the enemy never committed such foolishness. He did not miss any occasion to deceive and destroy the Hindus whenever got a chance. It was true not only in the medieval period when Muslims invaded India but in modern times as well. The delusion of slogan of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai in 1962, releasing of 90000 Pakistani POWs just for international acclaim while leaving our own POWs to languish in enemy captivity till today and returning the captured areas to Pakistan under the Shimla Agreement in 1971, Lahore Declaration consummating in Kargil episode in 1999 are some glaring examples of our hollow idealism, diplomatic immaturity and foolishness. Gained in the battlefield by our brave soldiers was always lost on the table by our myopic leaders.
5. Secularism:
Secularism (or pseudo-secularism?) has done immeasurable harm to Hinduism. The selfish Hindu leadership, both religious & political, is always eager to compromise the interest of Hindus for transient gains, in the name of secularism, without realizing the harm caused to the religion in the long run. Is this secularism not applicable to Muslims? Never does a Muslim ever talk of respect to the other faiths. The Muslim invaders exercised every atrocity to finish the Hindu race. They believed in dar-ul-Islam (converting the whole human race into Islamism). The only language they know is jehad and for them jehad denotes just killing qafirs i.e. everyone who does not follow Islam. The objective of dar-ul-Islam is very much alive even today. The whole world today is under the perpetual threat of Muslim fundamentalism.
It is only and only the leaders belonging to Hindu race who are the thekedars of secularism at the cost of their own faith. If there were Jai Chands in medieval times, there are Laloos, Paswans, Mulayams, Arjuns and Advanis in this era, who, for their momentary selfish motives, are selling the interests of the Hindus in the name of secularism without realizing the irreparable loss being caused by them to their community. Gandhi’s secularism always aimed at destruction of Hindus at the hands of Muslims. Paswan’s secularism advocates a Muslim Chief-Minister in Bihar. Arjun’s secularism believes in distorting our history. Numerous such pseudo secularists have always been active to destroy the Hindus.
Mulayam’s secularism impels him declare holiday in U.P. on last Friday of Ramjan. Mulayam, Pasvan and even Nitish Kumar throwing Iftaar parties to Muslims and wearing muslim caps on their heads shamelessly is the burning example of pseudo secularism.
The irony is that their secularism erupts only when the interests of the non-Hindus are involved. Thousands of Hindus being murdered in Mopla and Naokhali riots before partition, lakhs of Hindus being butchered and crores suffering displacement during partition in 1947 did not make a dint on any of these secularists. Thousands of Hindus being slain in Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir and lakhs being rendered refugees in their own motherland did not shake the soul of the secularists. Conversion of Bangladesh from a secularist to an Islamic nation in 1979 did not perturb these secularists nor did the planned elimination of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan caused qualms of conscience to them. The kar-sewaks burnt alive in Godhra doesn’t make any difference to these secularists, but its reaction in the form of Gujarat riots is termed as a “blot” on humanity and the heads of Bajpais and Advanis are “lowered in shame”. Muslim invaders looted & demolished thousands of temples and erected mosques over them, but redeeming Ram Temple from underneath Babri mosque is the “blackest day” in the life of secularist Advani. Time and again Commissions have been constituted to convict, by hook or crook, the accused of the 1984 Delhi riots and 2002 Gujarat riots even after their acquittal by the courts of law. On the other hand, terrorists like Wassan Singh Zaffarwal and Jagjit Singh Chouhan deserving severe punishment have gone scot-free for want of proof and it did not impel any secularist to deplore such acquittal and seek re-trial.
Mushrooming madrasas in the country indulging in anti-India activities does not worry these secularists but they have the audacity to term the activities of RSS and VHP as anti-nation. For them, religion-based reservation for the Muslims in AMU is not an anti-national act, but the alleged discrimination in relief-distribution to the quake-hit in Bhuj surely perturbs these secularists. 5% reservation for Muslims in A.P. awaiting emulation by Bihar and many other State Governments is another burning example of their secularism. Pampering the Muslims at the cost of the Hindus is an unpardonable sin, which cannot be forgiven by any rational and nationalist Indian. It is nothing but a political gimmickry for appeasement of Muslims to garner their votes, which has rendered the Hindus orphans in their own land. The coming generations of ours are being recklessly thrown to a disadvantageous position. The virtual slavery is inevitable for us.
6. Casteism
The casteism, too, has proved a bane for the Hindus. The exploitation of the lower castes at the hands of the privileged ones fomented hatred amongst the denizens of the country and weakened the Hindu race. Further, the Hindus being divided on caste lines in the past, the responsibility to fight and protect the country from foreign invaders was solely put on the Kshatriyas. This gave the others an excuse to shy away from the duty to sacrifice for the country. Whenever there was any attack, it was the Kshatriyas who were to face the brunt. Many a time their short number or non-availability of fighter-Kshatriyas lead to their defeat in wars.
7. Credulousness:
The Hindus are credulous by nature. They simply believed what others said without suspecting the ulterior designs of the enemy. There were occasions when the idealist Hindu rulers sincerely honoured a treaty or ceasefire in war but the crook enemy took undue advantage of their credulousness and captured them.
8. Liberalism/Indifferent Attitude:
Liberalism, too, has played a destructive role in Hindu religion. The pictures and names of Hindu Gods & Goddesses are freely used as mean trademarks and trade names. Ganesh Bidi, Ganesh Chhaap Khaini, Durga Lottery etc. by the Hindus themselves certainly lowers the respect for Hindu Gods in the mind of others. Taking a cue, the foreign companies dare to print the pictures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses on such mean things as undergarments, shoes and commodes. Would they dare to do the same with the deities of other faiths?
Making films on Hindu Gods & Goddesses causes irreparable harm to the faith. Human beings personifying Hindu Gods & Goddesses, picturization of vulgar scenes/songs in temples, showing Hindu Gods & Goddesses smoking in ad films only lowers their respect in the eyes of people.
TV serials like Ramayana, Maha Bharata, Jai Hanuman, Sri Krishna etc., where human beings play the divine role for money, encourage commercialisation of the Hindu ecclesiastical domain. Even in Jagrans, the bhaints are based on film tunes that certainly spoils the sanctity. The pictures of Hindu Gods & Goddesses on calendars, in newspapers and magazines being trampled under feet in streets definitely lower the respect in the mind of others. On the contrary, ban on assuming the role of Sikh Gurus or Muslim Prophet maintains reverence. Inviting censure of Sikhs by films like “Sava Lakh Se Ek Ladaoon”, and “Jo Bole So Nihal” are live examples of the concern of the Sikh community for their gurus, which regretfully is missing in the attitude of the Hindus.The beggars wearing masks of Hindu Gods and posing as Gods for begging in bazaars & streets definitely reduces obeisance for the Gods.
10. Lack of discipline and non-availability of facilities in temples, inns and places of pilgrimage:
Lack of discipline in Hindu temples and places of pilgrimage is also a serious stigma. The managing bodies of the Hindu religious places and the pandas are largely unscrupulous & selfish and are only interested in minting money. The ashrams and dharamshalas are used as enterprises of profit. On the contrary, the ample availability of food, shelter and services in gurudwaras certainly inspires a sense of security & respect in the mind of visitors. This has resulted in the taking over of the management of several Hindu shrines and places of pilgrimage by government. Could any government dare to do the same with a mosque or a gurudwara or a church?
Males and females bathing together at places of Hindu pilgrimage or in sacred rivers/ponds become objects of sensuousness only. Lack of conveniences, defecating and defiling the surroundings by the visitors present a nauseating look. On the contrary, strict discipline is observed in gurudwaras, which certainly helps in maintaining reverence for these places.
11. Glorification of invaders’ monuments:
It is a well known historical fact that the Muslim invaders exercised every atrocity on the native Hindus. They attacked us. They looted wealth, slaughtered innocent people, converted Hindus to Islam at the point of sword. They kidnapped our women and raped them with pride. They broke temples and erected mosques over them. They even decked idols of those temples in the stairs to humiliate Hindus. Famous historian P.N. Oak claims that the so called Muslim monuments in India were originally the Hindu buildings. The Muslim invaders plundered them, captured them, broke them, sacrileged them and converted them into Muslim monuments. The Hindus, instead of considering them a stigma on the national honour take pride in calling them national monuments. Millions of rupees are spent on their maintenance. Some have been given the status of heritage buildings. A community of self honour would never accept such humiliation like this.
12. Unhealthy custom of marriage:
There are many unhealthy and despicable customs amongst the Hindus. For example, in almost all the southern states of the country and parts of some western states like Maharashtra, Gujrat and Rajsthan, there is permission of a person marrying his niece, like sister’s daughter (bhanji), cousin like maternal uncle’s (mama) or paternal aunt’s (bhooa) daughter. This is marriage within consanguinity. Though marriage within consanguinity is against Hindu marriage Act, but the custom overrides the statutory provisions. This weakens the uniformity of the custom at national level and makes us a subject of ridicule by others.
13. Leaderless community:
A common Hindu belongs to leaderless community, as their own (Hindu) leaders are not for them, they are for others. I have seen Sikh leadership fighting collectively on different issues like Delhi riots, turban issue in France, kirpaan issue in Sweden, Santa-Banta (ridiculing cartoons) issue in Mumbai, turban-scanning issue in America. All the Sikh leaders irrespective of their political affiliation fought it collective. Similarly, Prophet Mohammed’s picture (cartoon) in a Danish newspaper attracted protest from Muslims all over the world. Conversely, you can amply see Hindu leaders neutralising efforts of their own brothers doing something for Hindu welfare and blaming of violating secularism. It is nothing but a cheap effort to earn momentary & transient acclaim from others. On the contrary, the leaders of other faiths fighting collective, forgetting their political differences, definitely fetches them tangible results.
The above-mentioned points prove that the Hindus are dead race with impotent leaders. They are no better than sheep and goats. They take pride in being driven like cattle by others. The selfish Hindu leaders see nothing beyond their myopic ends. The meek & selfish Hindus are sure to extinct one day.
Deploring earnestly,
Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 139, High court, Allahabad
H.I.G.-203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem Sarai, Allahabad
Phone No. 0532-2637720, 2436451
Mobile-919415284843, 919935787120, 919451181638, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, yogrekha@yahoo.co.in
Is It Democracy
IS IT DEMOCRACY
Napoleon Bonaparte said; “The crown of France was rolling inside the gutter, I simply picked up it, and put on my head”. The religion and caste division amongst Hindu were being exploited by the invaders. British’s sponsored the policy of divide and rule while politicians adopted a policy of the divide and spoil for their narrow gains in spite of the fact that it may be a threat to the nations unity and integrity of our country. Now nobody is looking forward to the vast problems of poverty, ignorance and disease. The divisive it forces of caste & religion imbalances through strong and resurgent India.
Battle of Panipat and battle of Plassy were not fought due to such divisive forces on the caste line but they were conquered by making ourselves slave to our destiny by different dynasty. Excellence and social equality with greater attention to socially disadvantaged minority group was essentially required to be given pre- dominance to check up global economic scenario annual. There is no leadership of extraordinary commitment and alertness as in accordance with the changing emergence of technological and intellectual impact on our society, but there is role entrepreneurs invigourous wealth creation through a radical change inn our character . Let us be confined to a classless society in which there may not be any appeasement or reservation except the excellence in respect of our performance. Unfortunately the traitors inside the country has provided still worsted shadow of darkness by an eclipsed sun. The people of whole country was suffering from a poignant pain of agony. The universality of which carries in it a great dignity of consolation we have promulgated the undesirable elements in our population coupled with corruption, cruelty, callousness and a complete disregard of public welfare, which is flourishable poison in the air. With confounded speculation of India’s starvation; a terrorist decade of oligarchy and anarchy having appeasement party politics as antithesis to creativity and potential, which has provided an obstacle to our inherited great stilled splendour intelligence with our super entrepreneurial spirit of cultural heritage to naught with intellectual apathy, I have risen to the occasion with profound bleeding at my heart to fight against compulsive gamble bent upon ascending our invaluable legacy providing to be caricature to our noble democracy. We the India’s having 15%of world population and 54% of illiterate citizens of the world are having only 1.5% of world income going down word trend in the list of exporting country from 16th place to 45 place with less them ½ of world to list traffic after 60 years of independence. Despite best ecological conditions and environment and natural resources we are amongst the 10th corrupt nations of the world. Scam of corruption, like Fodder Scam in Bihar, Harshad Mehta Scam, Cobbler Scam of Maharastra, Ayurvedic Scam in U.P., letter of credit Scam in Assam with 700 cases of corruption pending with C.B.I. is our identity. At least 40,000 criminal cases of kidnapping, murder, rape, gangsterism and Mafia Rule spreading the fear psychosis without having the printed proforma of F.I.R. and charge-sheet are the glorious instances in one State of Bihar, which is spreading the fire of greed and fears psychosis upon its people. About 240 public sectors enterprises by Union Govt. And 700 public sectors by the State Govt, are providing black hole in National Economy. The money guzzlers are extracting an exorbitant prices for Indian doctrinal socialism. The State of mobocracy in the strife of moral decay with facet of indiscipline, corruption and castism divisiveness with communal hatred, linguistic fanaticism, regional fancy and caste loyalty have provoked the conscience of patriotism. About 120 millions cases pending in the different courts without any probable disposal, within a considerable time period may further provide the loss of country’s valuable potential. 25 north country global phenomenon are having only ¼ of world’s population having 70/ of wealth, 80/ of trade, 90/ of industries and 99/ of finest and most advanced research centre are having their vast potential. They started giving benefit of donation received through begging, but our country’s politicians have set up to regeneration of corruption through these donations. Thus keeping away from realities in allowing to perpetuate the corruption by dishonest opportunity and with calibre are ruling over the nation. State Govt. was spending Rs. 1,11,96,000/- during Miss. Mayawati chief minister regime on the security of V.I.P. every month against whom the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 5000 crores were levelled in one public interest Litigation which were published in News Paper. This is all just to provide and boost the political career by our politician.
The collusion Govt. of India and Govt. of U.P. having ideologically antagonistic with its alliance is a heterogeneous conglomeration of disparage and disparage interest designed mainly to hedge the power against interest of common citizen. Our thrust with destiny as boosted by our leaders at the time of independence has now been scattered into pieces, sheltered into the extinction of hopes and abrogated and subjugated with the misfortunate scenario of our prophesier democratic set up of the Country. The doctrinaire ethics of democratic values and conceptual phenomenon of so called socialism and secularism being antithesis to social justice and religious sentiment has further deteriorated the very foundation of our country solidarity amongst the citizens. We have formulated utopian empire which is having no existence. This is on account of our character assassination which is resultant into a wild fire meant for destroying the very fabric of our integrity and existence. Can we claim to enjoy our independence.
Can we protect our nation from such anarchic situation. The answer convey the only recourse to be adopted i.e. the enforceable fundamental duties and strict discipline required to be implemented. Whether the army personnel deployed for protecting the Nation may not be assigned to fulfil the uphill task of providing a check to internal insurgency. Can still we enforce the necessity of maintenance of the strict discipline required to maintain by the Army personnel and not be our leaders, who have taken over the command like a diplomatic monarch in our country. Let us examine some of the drastic problem which has become the root cause of erosion of the traditional values of our culture.
Political parties are gripped to below with the wind and bend with the glass. The collusion Govt. emerged at the state level.
Napoleon Bonaparte said; “The crown of France was rolling inside the gutter, I simply picked up it, and put on my head”. The religion and caste division amongst Hindu were being exploited by the invaders. British’s sponsored the policy of divide and rule while politicians adopted a policy of the divide and spoil for their narrow gains in spite of the fact that it may be a threat to the nations unity and integrity of our country. Now nobody is looking forward to the vast problems of poverty, ignorance and disease. The divisive it forces of caste & religion imbalances through strong and resurgent India.
Battle of Panipat and battle of Plassy were not fought due to such divisive forces on the caste line but they were conquered by making ourselves slave to our destiny by different dynasty. Excellence and social equality with greater attention to socially disadvantaged minority group was essentially required to be given pre- dominance to check up global economic scenario annual. There is no leadership of extraordinary commitment and alertness as in accordance with the changing emergence of technological and intellectual impact on our society, but there is role entrepreneurs invigourous wealth creation through a radical change inn our character . Let us be confined to a classless society in which there may not be any appeasement or reservation except the excellence in respect of our performance. Unfortunately the traitors inside the country has provided still worsted shadow of darkness by an eclipsed sun. The people of whole country was suffering from a poignant pain of agony. The universality of which carries in it a great dignity of consolation we have promulgated the undesirable elements in our population coupled with corruption, cruelty, callousness and a complete disregard of public welfare, which is flourishable poison in the air. With confounded speculation of India’s starvation; a terrorist decade of oligarchy and anarchy having appeasement party politics as antithesis to creativity and potential, which has provided an obstacle to our inherited great stilled splendour intelligence with our super entrepreneurial spirit of cultural heritage to naught with intellectual apathy, I have risen to the occasion with profound bleeding at my heart to fight against compulsive gamble bent upon ascending our invaluable legacy providing to be caricature to our noble democracy. We the India’s having 15%of world population and 54% of illiterate citizens of the world are having only 1.5% of world income going down word trend in the list of exporting country from 16th place to 45 place with less them ½ of world to list traffic after 60 years of independence. Despite best ecological conditions and environment and natural resources we are amongst the 10th corrupt nations of the world. Scam of corruption, like Fodder Scam in Bihar, Harshad Mehta Scam, Cobbler Scam of Maharastra, Ayurvedic Scam in U.P., letter of credit Scam in Assam with 700 cases of corruption pending with C.B.I. is our identity. At least 40,000 criminal cases of kidnapping, murder, rape, gangsterism and Mafia Rule spreading the fear psychosis without having the printed proforma of F.I.R. and charge-sheet are the glorious instances in one State of Bihar, which is spreading the fire of greed and fears psychosis upon its people. About 240 public sectors enterprises by Union Govt. And 700 public sectors by the State Govt, are providing black hole in National Economy. The money guzzlers are extracting an exorbitant prices for Indian doctrinal socialism. The State of mobocracy in the strife of moral decay with facet of indiscipline, corruption and castism divisiveness with communal hatred, linguistic fanaticism, regional fancy and caste loyalty have provoked the conscience of patriotism. About 120 millions cases pending in the different courts without any probable disposal, within a considerable time period may further provide the loss of country’s valuable potential. 25 north country global phenomenon are having only ¼ of world’s population having 70/ of wealth, 80/ of trade, 90/ of industries and 99/ of finest and most advanced research centre are having their vast potential. They started giving benefit of donation received through begging, but our country’s politicians have set up to regeneration of corruption through these donations. Thus keeping away from realities in allowing to perpetuate the corruption by dishonest opportunity and with calibre are ruling over the nation. State Govt. was spending Rs. 1,11,96,000/- during Miss. Mayawati chief minister regime on the security of V.I.P. every month against whom the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 5000 crores were levelled in one public interest Litigation which were published in News Paper. This is all just to provide and boost the political career by our politician.
The collusion Govt. of India and Govt. of U.P. having ideologically antagonistic with its alliance is a heterogeneous conglomeration of disparage and disparage interest designed mainly to hedge the power against interest of common citizen. Our thrust with destiny as boosted by our leaders at the time of independence has now been scattered into pieces, sheltered into the extinction of hopes and abrogated and subjugated with the misfortunate scenario of our prophesier democratic set up of the Country. The doctrinaire ethics of democratic values and conceptual phenomenon of so called socialism and secularism being antithesis to social justice and religious sentiment has further deteriorated the very foundation of our country solidarity amongst the citizens. We have formulated utopian empire which is having no existence. This is on account of our character assassination which is resultant into a wild fire meant for destroying the very fabric of our integrity and existence. Can we claim to enjoy our independence.
Can we protect our nation from such anarchic situation. The answer convey the only recourse to be adopted i.e. the enforceable fundamental duties and strict discipline required to be implemented. Whether the army personnel deployed for protecting the Nation may not be assigned to fulfil the uphill task of providing a check to internal insurgency. Can still we enforce the necessity of maintenance of the strict discipline required to maintain by the Army personnel and not be our leaders, who have taken over the command like a diplomatic monarch in our country. Let us examine some of the drastic problem which has become the root cause of erosion of the traditional values of our culture.
Political parties are gripped to below with the wind and bend with the glass. The collusion Govt. emerged at the state level.
Usurpation of Agriculture Land by Tehsil Authorities Of Baxi Ka Talab-Lucknow
There is Usurpation of the Agriculture land by Unscrupulous Land Mafias by creating Unregistered Wills, one after another, in Connivances of Tehsil authorities over the ancestral land belonging to the Applicant- widow of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun having his Sankramaniya Bhumidhar over the Khasara Plots no. 621 area 2.630 Hectare, 808 area 0.332 Hectare, 811-Ka area 0.048 Hectare and also over Khasara Plot no. 807 area 4 Bigha 14 Biswa and Khasara Plot no. 832 area 1.372 Hectare. After his death Khasara Plot no. 621. 808 and 811-Ka remained under joint tenure holding of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and Sri Ram Mohan Saxena, while the Khasara Plot no. 807 was separately recorded in the name of Kailash Narain Saxena, while Khasara Plot no. 832 remain recorded in the name of Sri Ram Mohan Saxena situated at Village Sarora, Mazra Bhudhpurava, Tehsil Baxi- Ka Talab.
That the land Grabber have initiated the proceedings one by one after acquainted with the particulars of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena having the legal right of successes ion Smt. Madhuri Saxena, aged about 72 years wife of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Permanent Resident of Village-Sarora Bhudpurwa, Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, at present R/O-51/3 Haridwar Road, Dehradun through successive cases in Mutation Case No. 5/60 of 1996-97 Ramu S/o Hanuman r/o Bhoorpurva of village- Sarora Bhudpurwa, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow versus Estate Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun by inducting a fabricated and forged will dated 18.7.1985, thumb impression placed on the alleged fabricated will Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun , another Mutation Case No of 1997-98 Vijay Laxmi Tiwari D/O Rameshwar Prasad W/O Ved Prakash Tiwari, Versus Estate Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun a property dealer of property having his shop situated near Railway Crossing at Daliganj, Lucknow for getting another fabricated Will dated 25.1.1995 manufactured, Ramesh Singh S/o Kali Charan R/o Village Roshanabad, Mazra- Ghaila ,Pargana, Tehsil and District- Lucknow and Ram Jiyawan S/O Gajraj R/O Khale Ka Purva, Mazara Sarora, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow through the affiliation of then Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar, Etauza at Tehsil- Baxi Ka Talab planned to induct for another will Mutation Case no. 3/6/9/83 filed by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan in the year 1998- 1999 Versus Estate Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun which the exparte order was passed on 30.09.2004 regarding the same property belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena of forged Will was inducted ,Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab was declined to consolidate by order dated 8.2.2007 these cases in violation of the Mandate of Section 192-A of Land Revenue Act and order dated 14.3.2007 by Naib Tehsildar, Etauza deciding proceeding in violation of Section 201 of Land Revenue Act.
The Humble widow having all the three daughter married is Craving for deciding these Question and also the representation by framing certain question before the highest authority for kind consideration of your honour:-
Whether it was not the duty of Revenue Authorities to consolidate all three files and to get the name of legal successor being mutated by getting the matter pending in three simultaneously instituted proceeding from the year of 1996 may at least be decided by Mutation Authorities by taken the least sympathetic view?
Whether deciding one case in favour of one Mutation Case No. 3/6/9/1983 of 1998-99 in isolation of one land grabber by keeping other Mutation cases pending is voilative of section 192-A of Land Revenue Act and the same prohibited under Section 10 C.P.C, as will as constructive Res- judicata and the authorities have became conspirator with Land Mafia?
Whether it is not evident in case of Association of Dead People case and this Hon’ble Court In Chandra Bhan Case directed to create some Judicial discipline in revenue courts by deploying person with judicial acumen ship , entire proceedings of mutation case No. 3/6/9/1983 of 1998-99 be set aside and declared as null and void?
Whether some of the important questions of law are formulated in reference to the controversy, propriety and jurisdiction of the present mutation proceedings in case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 initiated by the land Mafia on the basis of frivolous Will purported to be manufactured through imposture by looking into the documents on records filed for seeking the name of the petitioner being entered in earlier mutation case no.5/60/1996-97 over the same property:-
· What is the sanctity of the unregistered wills in the mutation proceedings when the wife of the deceased being the legal successor and in juristic possession over the land in dispute is claiming her right for substitution in place of her husband?
· Whether on a particular land belonging to the husband of petitioner late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, if 3 successive claims through forged and illegal wills by the rank usurper on the basis of such frivolous and manufactured wills are set up before the mutation courts, the legal successors may not be given entry in revenue record on account of having the legal possession over the property in dispute?
· Whether the frivolous entry made in revenue record on the basis of frivolous unregistered will are not sufficient to make transaction of the said land and to get the proceedings under section 145 being decided on the basis of such entry or they may not mortgage such land for taking the loan from the financial institution and as such the legal right of the petitioner conferred under Article 14,19(1)(g), 21 as well as Article 300-A of the constitution of India are directly infringed?
· Whether the mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 filed by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan on the basis of fabricated will dated 15-7-1995 and on account of his criminal act of committing cheating and forgery, a case crime no. 242 of 2005 u/s 420/467/468/471/506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Dehradun was not sufficient evidence to preclude him from having the entry recorded in exparte manner on 30-9-2004 and by an order dated 14.3.2007 again the said order without recording any finding or opportunity of being heard may be passed by mutation court?
· Whether even after taking note of the case law inre: Association of Dead People (2000) 1 S.C.C. page 374 and the case of Chandra Bhan reported in 2006 (1) S.C.C. page 206, this Hon’ble Court may not take the judicial notice of the frivolous proceedings initiated by the rank usurper by declaring a living individual as the dead person and thereby grabbing of his property through unregistered will in the life time of such individual?
· Whether the mandate issued by incorporating the provisions of 192-A by U.P. Act no. 57 of 1976 in Land Revenue Act regarding consolidation of the cases and thereby filing of the application with such request before the Revenue court may not be sufficient to declare every order passed on 8.2.2007, 14.2.2007 and 14.3.2007 by the mutation court may not make them as null and void?
· Whether the mutation court after transfer of one case no. 3/6/9/83 before Naib Tehsildar Etauza on 14.2.2007, can this court without issuing any notice to the petitioner may decide the restoration application u/s 201 of the Land Revenue Act on 14.3.2007 without giving any information to the petitioner?
· Whether the revenue court while deciding the application under section 201 of Land Revenue Act was not duty bound to decide the question in relations to the sufficient cause of non-appearance of the petitioner in absence of any notice and to see the failure of justice and as such since the restoration application is dismissed without fulfillment of such requirement, the order passed on 14.3.2007 shall be deemed to be an order passed under inherent lack of jurisdiction and as such the present Representation is maintainable?
1. That at the very outset, it is submitted that there can not be any mutation entry pertaining to the land belonging to her husband on the basis of such forged will, pertaining to the period, when Late Kailash Narain Saxena was bed ridden and crippled even for performing his routine functioning for his survival alone in the year of 1995 and in presence of legal successor having the legal and juristic possession on such land, where three person have simultaneously initiated their claim over one property of Late Kailash Narain Saxena and initiated multiple proceedings, one after another bearing Mutation Case No, 5/60 of 1996-97 Ramu Versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena ( on basis of Forged will manufactured on 18.7.1985), Mutation Case No. 1997-98 Vijay Laxmi versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 25.1.1995, Mutation Case No. 3/9/81 of 1998-99 Ramesh Singh yadav and Kalicharan versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 15.7.1995), on which , the petitioner, being widow of late Kailash Narain Saxena lodged even F.I.R. bearing case Crime No. 242 of 2005 at P.S. sadar, Kotwali , Dehradun section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. Police station Kotwali, District Dehradun in the state of Uttaranchal and Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow refuses to consolidate all such file in Mutation Case No. 3/9/81 of 1998-99 Ramesh Singh Yadav and Kalicharan versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 15.7.1995) on 8.02.2007 and S.D.M. Baxi Ka Talab transfer such file on 14.02. 2007 to Naib Tehsildar , Etauza, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow and on 14.03. 2007 the property of late Kailash Narain Saxena, the husband of petitioner is order to be recorded in name of Ramesh Singh Yadav , who is confine in jail and committed murder of care taker upon the land of petitioner on 22.7.2005.
2. That the entire proceedings are abuse of the process in mutation court and it has become a mockery of the judicial proceeding by transgression of discretionary power by eroding the very foundation of Rule of Law in the Society as well as democratic set up of our system.
3. That filing of the present Representation is expedient on account of the facts that over the Estate belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, the mutation case no. 5/60 of 1996 (Ramu s/o Hanuman Vs. Estate of Late Kailash Narain Saxena) remain pending before the Mutation Court’s of Naib Tehsildar Etauza and Tehsildar Buxi ka Talab, Lucknow since the year 1996 and the matter was agitated by filing the revision before the Board of Revenue, in which the stay order remained operative staying the further proceedings of the aforesaid mutation case, but the Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyavan no. 7 and 8 by filing another case bearing Mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 (Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan Vs. Estate of Late Kailash Narain Saxena) got the proceedings initiated on the basis of another forged unregistered will dated 15-7-1995 and got the proceedings of this mutation case being decided on 30-9-2004 separately without giving any opportunity of being heard in exparte manner and when the petitioner became conversant and filed her application for setting aside the exparte order dated 30-9-2004 and sought for consolidation of both the files decided together in respect of same cause of action in consonance with the mandate of section 192-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the said applications have been dismissed on 8-2-2007 and thereafter the case was transferred by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate Buxi ka Talab on 14.2.2007 again behind the back of petitioner and thereafter the Mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 (Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan Vs. Estate of Late Kailash Narain Saxena) has been decided separately on 14.3.2007 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and as such the present Representation is filed seeking the setting aside of the orders dated 8-2-2007 and 14.2.2007 and the subsequent proceedings in furtherance of the order dated 14.3.2007 are sought to be set aside.
4. That this Representation filed for setting aside the entire Mutation proceedings initiated by the Criminals Mafia Land grabber before the Revenue Authority to get their names entered in the revenue records by manufacturing the forged, fictitious unregistered Wills allegedly claiming to be the testamentary successors in order to usurp the rights of the petitioner over the ancestral revenue land belonging to her husband lying in the Village Sarora Bhudpurwa, Tehsil-Baxi Ka Talab at Lucknow, as even after the expiry of more than 11 years of continuous efforts made by the petitioner, she could not be able to get her name entered as successor in place of her deceased husband.
5. That now if the petitioner in view of threatening given to her from last so many years may still be compelled to attend the proceedings, which starts after 1 to 2 P.M in the courts below generally after prolong waiting through out the day, there is apprehension and threatening given to her for being killed from the year of 2004 continuously after 30. 9.2004 Ex parte order obtained by criminal Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan. Thus there is no other option after approaching to every higher authority to take the shelter of this court as these proceedings in changed criminally charged atmosphere are no the Summery Proceedings, but the warrant of death and the easiest method to deprive any individual from her life and personnel liberty and also the rights of property in most arbitrary manner in collusion with revenue authorities and as such present Representation may be entertained as the petitioner is permanent citizen of another State Of Uttaranchal.
6. That late Sri Ram Narain Lal, the father in law’s of the petitioner remained recorded as Sankramaniya Bhumidhar over the Khasara Plots no. 621 area 2.630 Hectare, 808 area 0.332 Hectare, 811-Ka area 0.048 Hectare and also over Khasara Plot no. 807 area 4 Bigha 14 Biswa and Khasara Plot no. 832 area 1.372 Hectare. After his death Khasara Plot no. 621. 808 and 811-Ka remained under joint tenure holding of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and Sri Ram Mohan Saxena, while the Khasara Plot no. 807 was separately recorded in the name of Kailash Narain Saxena, while Khasara Plot no. 832 remain recorded in the name of Sri Ram Mohan Saxena.
7. That since Khasara Plot no. 621, 807, 808, 811-Ka and 832 measuring about 15 acres remained recorded in the joint tenure holdership of Kailash Narain Saxena and Ram Mohan Saxena as the property obtained through their ancestors, without having the partitions thereof to their respective share and without having the consent from the co-sharer, these plots may not be sold.
8. That the petitioner Smt. Madhuri Saxena is the wife of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena. Sri Kailash Narain Saxena was posted as Superintendent Geophysics under Oil and Natural Gas commission, who compulsorily retired prematurely on 16.05.1988 (A.N.) from the post of Superintendent Geo-physicist due to his paralytic stroke during his posting on the said post.
9. That Sri Kailash Narain Saxena died on 10.1.1996 after prolong ailments and completely bed ridden from 1990 onward after his compulsory retirement from govt. service in 1988, leaving behind his widow Smt. Madhuri Saxena and three daughters namely Pragati Saxena, Jagriti Saxena and Dr. Smriti Saxena as the successors of the landed property. Smt. Pragati Saxena (now Mitra) is now posted as Superintendent Geo-physicist and her husband Mr. P.P. Mitra is also posted at a high-ranking designation. All the daughters are married and they are the legal owner and successors of the property in dispute.
10. That subsequently his condition was further deteriorated and he executed Power of Attorney in favour of his wife namely the petitioner for looking after his ancestral agriculture landed property situated at Lucknow and the other constructed shops situated at District- Lakhimpur Khiri. After his retirement Sri Kailash Narain Saxena became incapable, crippled, unconscious state of mind and lying on death bed after compulsory retirement even for writing and for meeting of his daily requirement of taking of food and for attending the call of nature. The active support was required to be given to him continuously after his paralytic ailment till his death, which took place on 10.01.1996.
11. That Sri Kailash Narain Saxena died leaving behind her widow namely the petitioner and three daughters namely Pragati Saxena, Jagriti Saxena and (Dr.) Smriti Saxena at Dehradun. Smt. Pragati Saxena and her husband are settled at Delhi.
12. That another daughter of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and the petitioner namely Smt. Jagriti Saxena is M.A B. Ed. and having the post graduate Diploma in Software. She is now married with a businessman at Dehradun.
13. That the youngest daughter Smt. (Dr.) Smriti Saxena is a Doctor with a diploma in Gynecology and is posted in Military Hospital Dehradun. Thus on account of the involvement of all the three daughters with their family members, none of the daughters or their husbands are in a position to provide the assistance to the petitioner for looking after the cases pending at Tehsil -Baxi Ka Talab in Lucknow.
14. That Sri Ram Mohan Saxena went to Germany and became German Citizen and his respective share was also being managed by Sri Kailash Narain Saxena during his life time and after the death of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, the petitioner was looking after the entire landed property and managing the affair of cultivation through some care-taker namely Hanuman Prasad. Firstly Ramesh Singh got half of the property recorded in name of Ram Mohan Saxena purchased without given any information to any one relative regarding pendency of case no. 3/6/9/1983 of 1998-99 and to present counsel of petitioner and got transaction on 20. 9. 2004 at Baxi ka Talab in name of his son and Minor Son and got their name recorded illegally, as rest of the property was proposed to usurp by creating the forged will at Dehradun and there after got the ex- parte order on 30.9.2004 U/ S 34 of L.R.Act.
15. That stimulated by impulse of unscrupulous greed to get the undue advantage of her family set up by the rustic element with Criminal back grounds, have purported to get the fabricated Will being manufactured as to take over the possession of the land belonging to the petitioner.
16. That firstly the forged Will was inducted by one Ramu S/o Hanuman r/o Bhoorpurva of village- Sarora Bhudpurwa, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow by inducting a fabricated and forged will for which apart from the contest in mutation proceedings by Smt. Madhuri Saxena before Tehsildar- Baxi ka Talab, District- Lucknow, as the criminal proceeding were initiated against him.
17. That the son of Hanuman Prasad namely one Ramu got a fabricated will being manufactured under the alleged thumb impression of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, which was alleged to have been manufactured on 10-7-1985. It is submitted that in the aforesaid allege will manufactured on 10-7-1985, Sri Kailash Narain Saxena was shown to be running at the age of 70 years, which the date of birth of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as mentioned in service records and in High School certificate was 7-7-1933 and thus in the year of 1985 Sri Kailash Narain Saxena was running at the age of 52 years. He remained on duty with Oil and Natural Gas commission at Dehradun through out the month of July, 1985 and there was no casual leave or any earned leave taken by Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and as per the Calendar it was found that 10-7-1985 was a public holiday. That when the mutation proceedings initiated by Ramu son of Hanuman by fabricating the alleged thumb impression of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as on 10.7.85, wherein the forged death certificate issued by the village Pradhan was filed to get the name of Ramu recorded.
18. That when the thumb impression placed on the alleged fabricated will was compared with the thumb impression of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as Sri Kailash Narain Saxena got a mortgage deed executed on 5-8-1972 for the purposes of taking loan from the O.N.G.C. Dehradun where he was employed, then it came to the notice that the thumb impression placed in the said manufactured will is a forged and fabricated thumb impression of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena.
19. That firstly the litigation was filed by filing a Criminal case of cheating against Ramu son of Hanuman and his alleged witness namely Matadin, who were closely associated with the Village Pradhan namely one Babu lal Verma village- Sarora, Baxi Ka Talab at Lucknow. The Village Pradhan issued the forged death certificate of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena indicating his incorrect date of death being taken place on 18.3.1996. For manufacturing the fabricated Will, the imposture of some fabricated thumb impression was made in order to concoct the alleged Will as of 10.7.1985, when Kailash Narain Saxena was very much present at Dehradun and was posted and working as Superintendent Geophysicist in O.N.G.C. Department.
20. That the petitioner contested the matter by filing a complaint case no. 4651 of 1996 under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C read with section 34 and 120-B I.P.C against Ramu son of Hanuman and Matadin as well as against the Village Pradhan Babu lal Verma. All the three accused were arrested in the said case.
21. That the statement of petitioner was recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on 22.11.1996 where the petitioner has categorically stated that on 10-7-1985 Sri Kailash Narain Saxena was at Dehradun and he was not running at the age of 70 year, while his actual age was 52 years at that time. The death certificate issued by Babu Lal Pradhan was also manufactured by stating the date of death of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as on 28-9-1995, while he actually died on 10.1.1996. That thereafter Ramu got the green trees of Mango Plant cut down from the Agriculture land belonging to the petitioner. Thus another case of cheating was registered against Ramu for the aforesaid Crime.
22. That the first information report was lodged by the petitioner against Ramu for cutting down the green mango trees which was bearing case crime no. 374 of 1996, u/s 379 I.P.C. r/w 4/10 P.C.T. Act, P.S. Mariyan Sadar, Lucknow on 4.8.1996.
23. That in this manner when the proceedings of mutation case no. 5/60 Ramu Versus Kailash Narain Saxena were initiated against the petitioner by setting up the purported claim set up by Ramu son of Hanuman and thereafter a revision petition no.70 of 1996-97 was filed by the petitioner, in which the Board of Revenue on 14.05.1997 stayed the further proceedings of Case No. 5/60. The aforesaid stay order was further extended on 6.5.2000. A report was sought on the behest of another land grabber Ramesh Singh from the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) on 10.02.2003 and as such it was recorded that the fresh case filed by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan was filed bearing Mutation Case No.3/6/9/83 before another Naib Tehsildar on 20.07.2004, allegedly in furtherance of some order passed by Board of Revenue on 22. 10.2003.
24. That since a Mutation Case no. 5/60 of 1996-97 was filed by Ramu against the Estate of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena which was pending in the court of Naib Tehsildar Etauda Tehsil- Bakashi Ka Talab, the petitioner engaged counsel for contesting the aforesaid proceedings of mutation case based upon such fabricated and manufactured documents. On the advise of these counsels instead of contesting the matter on merit against Ramu, it was advised to move the transfer application before the Board of Revenue, which was filed bearing T.A. no. 70 of 1996-97 and on 14-5-1997 the further proceedings of mutation court of Naib Tehsildar B.K.T. Lucknow in case no. 5/60 of 1996-97 were stayed by fixing 15-10-1997 in the said case.
25. That the petitioner has also sought for requisition of original mortgage deed dated 9-8-1972 from the court of Naib Tehsildar, Buxi Ka Talab to verify the thumb impression by the writing expert as placed on the fabricated will dated 10-7-1985 and in pursuance thereof the signature of Late Kailash Narain Saxena were became available for making the imposture of the same in the subsequent will..
26. That since the petitioner filed the power of attorney executed by her husband on 11.5.1990 in favour of the petitioner for looking after the said property and in the said power of attorney virtually every power of transfer was given to the petitioner and as such the subsequent will were manufactured by seeing the style of signature of late Kailash Narain Saxena from the aforesaid power of attorney submitted by the petitioner before the court below having the complaint case no. 4667 of 1996 pending before Addl. Civil Judge, Lucknow.
27. The petitioner came into contact with Ved Prakash Tiwari, who after getting further information in respect of the property belonging to Kailash Narain Saxena, got inducted his wife Vijay Laxmi Tiwari D/O Rameshwar Prasad for getting another fabricated Will manufactured, however she filed the mutation case, but on account of the fact that the criminal proceedings were initiated against the other person, she did not pursue the matter any further till date. The aforesaid alleged Will was allegedly manufactured on 25.1.1995 with fabricated signature of Kailash Narain Saxena. Superintendent Geophysicist at Dehradun.
28. That this person after being conversant regarding the pathetic situation of the family, it appears that other person colluded with one Ved Prakash Tiwari, a property dealer of property having his shop situated near Railway Crossing at Daliganj, Lucknow for unlawfully taking over the aforesaid agriculture landed property and he got another will manufactured in the name of Smt. Vijay Laxmi, the name of his wife, but anyhow, due to some remote consideration the same was again substituted by another fabricated will.
29. That, one Pyarey lal son of Sri Raghunandan and Mathura Prasad Yadav son of Sri Haripal Yadav Resident of Village-Sarora Bhudpurwa, Budhpurwa, Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab got some document prepared allegedly to contest these litigation as power of attorney holder, for which the payment of some dues and future profit amount was given to Smt. Madhuri Saxena, but it has come to the notice of Smt. Madhuri Saxena that the same is a purported document of agreement to Sale, as is being told to Smt. Madhuri Saxena later on.
30. That aforesaid Document alleged and purported Agreement to Sale to have been Executed on 13-11- 1999 was cancelled being a forged and Fabricated Document executed by misleading & misrepresentation to her and there by a fraud has been committed upon the petitioner. They have not paid their dues lying against Sri Kailash Narain Saxena during his lifetime, but paid it to petitioner through some bank Drafts as such the said amount is also adjusted in lieu of the profit earned by them.
31. That at this stage it is also relevant to mention here that since the name of the petitioner Smt. Madhuri Saxena was not even recorded as the tenure holder over the land in dispute on account of the fact that Ramu son of Hanuman had already moved an application seeking mutation of his name in place of the name of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and as such no such agreement of sale could have been executed on 13.10.1999 in favour of the plaintiff and as such the petitioner was deceived in a preplanned conspiracy hatched by her own counsel. The alleged agreement to sale was prepared through the active coordination by the Sub Registrar, Baxi ka Talab for some extraneous consideration for which the petitioner was given impression that it is only the power of attorney executed by herself and the counsel wanted to provide her the financial assistance by realizing the money in lieu of the benefit and proposed benefits accrued to the plaintiffs from the production of crops , sale of the wood of mango and other trees and also the security amount, which will be adjusted if the profit earned by the plaintiffs to the extent of anticipated amount of Rs.18,500/- per year shall not be paid by the plaintiffs in future, if the litigation in the mutation court may prolong for a longer period and the criminal cases filed against Ramu may not be decided. Thus the suit of permanent injunction on the basis of the alleged fabricated registered agreement said to have been executed by the petitioner on 13/14-10-1999, is not maintainable.
32. That nothing was given to the Petitioner by the power of attorney in furtherance of said document dated 14-10-1999 in lieu of the earning made through the agriculture land belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena after 13.10.1999 and when the defendant enquired about the payment of the annual income from the agriculture land as determined amounting to Rs.5000/- per year, then it came to the notice of the defendant that some purported agreement to sale document has been obtained in the deceptive manner through coercion and undue influence of the Advocate in connivance with the plaintiffs, to whom she had engaged for looking after her cases of mutation proceedings, criminal cases and for supervising the property by the plaintiff respectively.
33. That it is relevant to mention here that although it is alleged on 14.10.1999 in respect of possession of enjoyment and cultivation of the land belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner have themselves stated for making the regular payment of Rs. 5000/- per year, but no such payment has been made apart from the agreed portion of the profit made from the crops as the counsel and the plaintiffs stated earlier that the same may be reimbursed in the security deposit of Rs.1,10,000/- by deducting Rs.18,500/- per year inclusive of Rs.5000/- and as such after the expiry of more than 7 ½ years the entire amount paid as security amount has been adjusted towards the cost of the profit earned by cultivating the crops in dispute. Thus there is no right of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute, nor they can claim any right for the alleged specific performance on the basis of the fabricated documents dated 13-10-1999 against the petitioner.
34. That the petitioner has already given the notice to the plaintiffs as well as to the Sub Registrar registration department, Baxi ka Talab on 27-5-2005 simultaneously of filing the affidavit before the Revenue court. The complaint regarding the cheating, forgery and criminal tress-pass by the plaintiff has already been made to the Chief Secretary, District Magistrate, and Senior Superintendent of Police and also to Tehsildar Baxi Ka Talab in respect of the encroachment over the valuable right of property belonging to the petitioner. They have also given this information and thereby you have committed and offence of criminal trespass in the aforesaid process. It is brought to you notice that after the amendment in Uttar Pradesh by U. P. Act. No 31 of 1961, every unauthorized possession over others land is criminal trespass with affect from 13.11.1961, and as such the possession taken over the said land belonging to Smt Madhuri Saxena the widow of Late Shri Kailash Narain Saxena is a criminal trespass.
35. That the alleged agreement purported to have been manufactured on 13-10-1999 is in itself illegal and void as the same is pertaining to the purported future right based upon the succession in favour of the petitioner over the ancestral land belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, who died leaving behind three daughters having their respective shares in the agriculture land and as such no suit of permanent injunction could have been filed without impleading the necessary parties and without impleading the true owner in respect of the land, against whom the purported document is said to forfeit their respective right of ownership. The suit is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action or any right is available to the plaintiffs for filing the suit No. 740 of 2005. Such suit is barred under the provisions of law. The same is also barred under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as section 34(5) of the Land Revenue Act. This suit is also barred under section 171/172 as the same has been filed to deprive the right of succession of the widow having an interest in the survivorship and is meant for taking away the rights of the daughters from the land belonging to their deceased father.
36. That another Land Mafia namely Ramesh Singh S/o Kali Charan R/o Village Roshanabad, Mazra- Ghaila ,Pargana, Tehsil and District- Lucknow and Ram Jiyawan S/O Gajraj R/O Khale Ka Purva, Mazara Sarora, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow through the affiliation of then Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar at Tehsil- Baxi Ka Talab planned to induct for another will in respect of the said property belonging to late Shri Kailash Narain Saxena .
37. That after all these proceeding initiated by the petitioner as per legal advise given to her and the petitioner continued to perform, whatever has been directed by her counsel for protecting her rights. It appears that subsequently taking the advantage of old age of petitioner since the proceeding were tedious and petitioner was not in a position to look after these proceedings of mutation case no. 5/60 of 1996-1997 filed by Ramu, the power of attorney was advised to have been issued in favour of one Pyare Lal and Mathura Prasad, who appeared to have procure some documents clandestinely registered as the alleged agreement to sale. It is submitted that Naib Tehsildar Etauza in furtherance of the stay order granted by Board of Revenue stayed the further proceedings of Mutation Case no. 5/60 of 1996-1997 on 6-5-2000, but Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan the subsequent inductor of another forged will dated 15-7-1995 moved some transfer application before him in another mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 filed by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan in the year 1998 on 19-12-2002 and without looking into the fact that the say order was continuing in pursuance of the order passed by Board of Revenue on 20-10-2003 during pendency of revision decided on 20.7.2004, these land mafia after manufacturing the forged will got the service effected upon the petitioner through publication and ultimately succeeded to get an exparte order on 30-9-2004.
38. That it is pertinent to mention here that in spite the appearance of the petitioner in mutation Case No. 5 /60 of 1996-97, the petitioner already appeared as the legal heir and successor and as such there was no question of entertaining the application of Ramesh Singh on the basis of his alleged Will.
39. That it is relevant to mention here that the revenue authorities have acted in collusion with Ramesh Singh son of Kali Charan Yadav, who was having the money power just to grab the property of the innocent persons.
40. That in the Ex- Parte order passed on 30.09.2004, it is recorded that the notice was sent to the petitioner at her permanent residential address i.e. at Village Sarora Bhudpurwa Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow, while admittedly the petitioner was residing at Dehradun along with her daughter Dr. Smriti Saxena, which was apparent on the record of said file.
41. That it is also said that even the publication in the local paper at Baxi Ka Talab. This was fabricate and allegedly done for giving notice to the petitioner and there after recorded in the said order that she did not appear. Then the ex-parte order Dt. 30.9.2004 directing the name of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan was recorded on the basis of the alleged Will, Which is said to have been made and manufactured on 15.7.1997 at Dehradun through fictitious attesting Notary.
42. That thereafter in order to get the usurpation to the entire land, the forged Will purported to be manufactured at Dehradun was made the document for getting the name of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan recorded in the revenue record by the exparte order passed by 30.09.2004.
43. That the objections were filed under Section 201 of Land Revenue Act on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter many dates were fixed upto Feb. 2005 but the name so recorded in exparte manner without giving any information to the petitioner, still remained continue on the file of the mutation case pertaining to the Estate of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena.
44. That at the same time, since the daughters of petitioner were married and there was the difficulty faced by the petitioner to appear in the aforesaid cases on every date, it was advised to the petitioner by her counsel in connivance with the plaintiff to get the Power of Attorney given to them to look after the pending matters and for that purposes, it was settled that the plaintiffs may provide the substantial amount for looking after the mango tree plants and they will also harvest the crops for which an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- each will be paid towards the cost of the trees and also the similar amount as the security. An amount of Rs.59,500/- was also settled for being paid as the money earned from the crops harvested during the intervening period.
45. That apart from this it was also agreed to pay the annual profit earned through such land and it was assured to the petitioner that after getting the name of the petitioner being recorded as the tenure holder alongwith her daughters, the land will be vested with the legal successors and heirs of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena in due course of time.
46. That it appears that by taking the advantage of all such wrong legal advise to pursue the matter before the court of Board of Revenue instead of contesting the matter from Ramu on its merit, in order to make the case further complicated and after getting the correct information through some sources, another case bearing case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 was filed by one Ramesh Singh son of Kali Charan R/o Roshanabad and by Sri Ram Jiyawan s/o Gajraj r/o Khalepurva Tehsil- Baxi Ka Talab, District- Lucknow for their alleged right through another forged will alleged to have been manufactured at Dehradun on 15-7-1995 through some Notary, in which the manufactured and forged signatures were made of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena by some imposture after looking into the other documents provided to the counsels . One Sri H.L. Srivastava has been shown to be the witness in the said will.
47. That thereafter this Ramesh Singh s/o Kalicharan resident of Roshanabad Mazra Ghaila Pargana, Tehsil and district Lucknow got the half share belonging to Sri Ram Mohan Saxena comprising of Khasara Plot no. 621, 808, 811-Ka recorded in joint share with Kailash Narain Saxena and Khasara Plot no. 832 area 1.372 Hectare purchased in the name of his major son Jai Singh and also in the name of the minor son Vishal Singh for an amount of Rs.26 Lacs on 21.9.2004, in which there was boring done and the tube-well installed by Sri Kailash Narain Saxena in the running condition, which have the valuation of more than Rs.30,000/- and the cost of four mango trees assessed as more than 16,000/- in the said sale deed.
48. That the petitioner is filing the report submitted to the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) on 04.01.2003 by Naib Tehsildar in respect of the application filed by Ramesh Singh, in which it was categorically mentioned that during the pendency of the mutation case No. 5/60 of 1996-97 Ramu Versus Kailash Narain Saxena seeking mutation of his name, no further application of Ramesh Singh for getting his name recorded in the revenue record on the Estate of Kailash Narain Saxena is maintainable.
49. That the real brother of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, namely Ram Mohan Saxena was shifted to Germany and as such the remaining half share of the real brother of Kailash Narain Saxena namely Kailash Narain Saxena looked after Sri Ram Mohan Saxena, during his life time and by the petitioner after the death of her husband Kailash Narain Saxena.
50. That Ram Mohan Saxena , now a German Citizen came to India. He was contacted by Ramesh Singh son of Kali Charan for disposing of his half of the share from the ancestral land belonging to his father and the father of Kailash Narain Saxena, late Sri Ram Narain Saxena at Khasra No. 621 area 2.630 Hectare, 808 area 0.332 Hectare, 811 Ka area 0.048 Hectare and Khasra no. 832 area 1.372 Hectare at Village Sarora, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow. The said deed was executed on 20.09.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 26,00,000 ( twenty six Lacs) in the name of the sons of Ramesh Singh, namely Jai Singh and Vishal Singh (minor). The recording of the name of the sons of Ramesh Singh, namely Jai Singh and Vishal Singh (minor) on the basis of such transaction is void.
51. That surprisingly enough to state that this Ramesh Singh And Ram Jiyawan filed another case seeking the mutation of their names in place of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena bearing mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1997-98 and without giving any knowledge to the petitioner, nor sending any summon at the residential address of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as well as of petitioner Smt. Madhuri Saxena, but they got an ex-parte order on 30-9-2004 just after 9 days of the execution of sale deed dated 21-9-2004 obtained clandestinely through Ram Mohan Saxena without having the partition of the share, nor making the payment of the cost of the Tube-well, four mango plants and other accessories.
52. That it is relevant to mention here that the mutation court of Naib Tehsildar was not even authorised to register another mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1997-98 and to pass the ex-parte order on 30-9-2004 in favour of Ramesh Singh s/o Kali charan and Ram Jiyawan when already the comments were already furnished on 4.1.2003 to the Addl. Collector Admn. Lucknow in this regard by Naib Tehsildar Itauza, Tehsil- Bakshi Ka Talab Lucknow.
53. That nothing was given to the petitioner by the plaintiff in lieu of the earning made through the agriculture land belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena after 13.10.1999 and when the petitioner enquired about the payment of the annual income from the agriculture land as determined amounting to Rs.5000/- per year, then it came to the notice of the petitioner that some purported agreement to sale document has been obtained in the deceptive manner through coercion and undue influence of the Advocate in connivance with the plaintiffs, to whom she had engaged for looking after her cases of mutation proceedings, criminal cases and for supervising the property by the plaintiff respectively.
54. That the first information report has already been lodged against Ramesh Singh s/o Kali Charan and Ram Jiyawan in Police station Kotwali, District Dehradun, wherein the purported alleged will in favour of Ramesh Singh s/o Kali Charan and Ram Jiyawan has been manufactured by these persons. A case crime no. 240 of 2005 under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. Police station Kotwali, District Dehradun in the state of Uttaranchal has been registered for their alleged will dated 15-7-1995, which has been shown to be attested at Dehradun through some Notary. Both the attesting witness of the said will alleged to have been executed in favour of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan could have been located by the petitioner, nor by the Police. The investigation is still going on for which the efforts have been made by the petitioner and her daughter Dr. Smriti Saxena holding diploma in gynecology and presently posted in Military Hospital Dehradun.
55. That it appears that due to the aforesaid unscrupulous greed stimulated by the impulse of the profit and thereby making the victim to the petitioner for depriving her from legitimate right of succession in the property belonging to her husband, there has been the murder committed on 22.7.2005 of one Chandoika Prasad by Ramesh Singh s/o Kali Charan alongwith his associates and all of them are confined in jail.
56. That the right of succession of an individual to inherit the property of her deceased husband by the petitioner may not be the subject matter of the frivolous mutation proceedings initiated by the land grabber through unregistered manufactured Wills for usurpation of the property worth of Rs. 26-35 Lacs and as such even after initiating the criminal cases against such person, the recording of their name in Revenue record on the basis of such forged Will by the revenue authority is clearly prohibited under law.
57. That the contest was made before the revenue authority by the legal heir, such authority shall cease to exercise their discretion in favour of an individual claiming such right on the basis of unregistered Will and as such to record the name of such criminal, still after the lodging of the First Information Report for committing the forgery in Will may tantamount as violation of the right conferred to the petitioner, under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
58. That as soon as petitioner came to know about such exparte order, passed in favour of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan, the recall application for setting aside the exparte order was filed within time on behalf of the petitioner. However in spite the Representation filed by the petitioner for getting the exparte order being set-aside, the exparte order dated 30.09.2004 has yet not been set-aside.
59. That there are ample of evidence showing deponent permanent residing at Dehradun and the purported will was itself manufactured on 15-7-1995, when Kailash Narain Saxena was having no conscience and was crippled who can neither write nor recognise any one and was not in a position to understand any thing, then how does the service was shown with wrong address and deemed to be effective by publication in some non circulated news paper evening news paper at Lucknow upon the Deponent. The case Crime No. 242 of 2005 for manufacturing the Forged will is pending, in which neither any Notary is Traceable nor witness of the forged will to the Police. Thus the order dated 14-3-2007 is an abuse of the process and passed for some extraneous consideration with malafide intention of Revenue Authorities at Baxi Ka Talab.
60. That the petitioner after being conversant regarding the alleged existence of the said purported will manufactured by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan, she lodged the First Information Report, bearing Case Crime No. 242 of 2005, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, Dehradun. Since there was neither existence of any Notary nor any witness Advocate was found practicing at Dehradun and as such the aforesaid case crime number has been registered against all such individuals who have manufactured the aforesaid Will.
61. That in the mean time, Ramesh Singh S/O Kalicharan committed the murder over the land belonging to the petitioner at Village Sarora Bhudpurwa Ramesh Singh is now confined in Jail on account of the aforesaid day light murder. However the ‘ B’ warrant has yet to be issued by the Police at Dehradun for conducting the further investigation in Case of forgery committed by Ramesh Singh son of Kalicharan and Ram Jiyawan for grabbing the property belonging the petitioner.
62. That in spite all such incidents the petitioner is craving the support from other close relatives as she may reach at Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab which is situated at the distance of about 18 Kilometers from Railway Station Lucknow. She is required to stay with one of the caretaker whenever she is attending the proceedings of the Revenue court situated at Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab.
63. That on 27.05.2005, the petitioner was threatened by the hatch men of the Land Mafia grabbing the property of other innocent citizens having no support of the locality. It was said by some of the miscreants at about 5 P.M on 27.05.2005 regarding the bad consequences, in case the petitioner may further visit at Baxi Ka Talab to get the exparte order passed in favour of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan being set aside.
64. That the petitioner made the contact from her nephew Advocate, Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate practicing at Allahabad High Court to the S.D.M, Baxi Ka Talab and also with Tehsildar on 27.05.2005 and she was given an assurance by both these authorities that since all the complaints made by her have been taken cognizance by them and as such the appropriate order of setting aside the name of unauthorized person shall be done within no time but till date nothing has been done so far for illegal continuation of the name of the miscreants who have committed crime in manufacturing the Will and committed murder of the Care taker of the petitioner. That the petitioner given her power of attorney to her nephew to look after her interest in respect of property purported to Usurpation by all such land mafia and written a revocable Power of attorney in his favour to deal with the affairs of property belonging to Late Kailash Narain Saxena located at Baxi Ka Talab, at Lucknow.
65. That petitioner filed the representation to the Chief Secretary, District Magistrate, Lucknow and also to the S.S.P. Dehradun regarding grabbing of her land by Land Mafia and made the complaint to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh for giving permission to initiate the proceedings against the officials of Baxi Ka Talab who have acted in collusion with these criminals. However no action has been taken in all such complaints, which are lying along with the record of the mutation case No.3/6/9/1993 in which the exparte order was passed on 30.09.2004.
66. That it appears that Pyarey lal and another, who has been given power of attorney, who is also alleging his right on certain purported document said to have been manufacture under garb of obtaining the property after being mutated in name of petitioner has filed a suit against Ramesh lal and Ram Jiyawan , when their was apprehension of taking forcible possession on the land belonging to the petitioner and lying in petitioner’s possession till date. The First appellate court in misc. Appeal No. 155 of 2005 has already granted Injunction in favour of petitioner through her agent and power of attorney holder directing the Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyavan to maintain status quo regarding the nature of property on 18.10.2005 in getting Impugned order14.3.2007 and thus the impugned order passed on 14.3. 2007 is an order without jurisdiction.
67. That it is on record that Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab even after being conversant regarding the pendency of the initial Mutation Proceeding filed regarding the same property belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena of forged Will was inducted by one Ramu S/o Hanuman r/o Bhoorpurva of village- Sarora Bhudpurwa, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow in Mutation case No. 5/60 of 1996-97, for which apart from the contest in mutation proceedings by Smt. Madhuri Saxena before Tehsildar- Baxi ka Talab, District- Lucknow Revision No. 70/1996-97 pending before Board of Revenue dismissed as by the order dated 06-05-2000, the proceeding of mutation case pending before Naib Tehsildar, Etauza were remained stayed. However Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab was declined to consolidate both the cases.
68. That thereafter a transfer application was filed by Pyare lal and Mathura Prasad by leveling the allegation against Tehsildar regarding underhand dealing by filing a transfer application on the same date and got an order behind the back of the petitioner from the court of S.D.M. Baxi Ka Talab on 14.2.2007.
69. That the order has been passed on 14.3.2007 passed by Naib Tehsildar Etauza by putting every sort of judicial procedure being kept aside affecting the property rights of the petitioner without giving any information to the petitioner.
70. That the petitioner moved the complaint to every authorities and also to the chief Minister of U.P. stating therein that the conspiracy is hatched by these three person to usurp the ancestral property of the petitioner and the authorities at Baxi Ka Talab.
71. That firstly the application filed under section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act must be decided on the ground that the summons were not served at any point of time and the frivolous service while passing the impugned order on 14.3.2007 by Naib Tehsildar Etauza.
72. That the petitioner was surprise to receive the summon fixing 12.11.2007 in Appeal no. 46 of 2007-2007 filed by one Pyare Lal and Mathura Prasad challenging the order dated 14.3.2007.
73. That the petitioner thereafter requested the court of S.D.M. at Buxi Ka Talab on 12.11.2007 after being conversant first time regarding the orders dated 8.2.2007, 14.2.2007 and 14.3.2007 that she is not in position to approach the Hon’ble Court on account of her bronchial Asthma, diabetes and arthritis as she is running at the age of 72 years and she has got the risk of being killed by the hatch man of the Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyavan , who have threatened to her of the dire consequences, if she appeared to contest the case on the previous occasion earlier. However despite such request being made the petitioner was directed to file her reply by fixing 21.11.2007 and on such date the petitioner has submitted the adjournment application and her reply in support of cross appeal filed on 12.11.2007.
74. That instead of fixing any date after 4 weeks w.e.f. 16-11-2007 the date has been fixed on 3.12.2007 and on that date the single matter pertaining to the mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 and the appeal filed in pursuance thereof only bearing appeal no. 45 of 2006-2007 may be decided in isolation without deciding other cases of the mutation filed on frivolous wills, on the basis of which the manufactured and fabricated will has been prepared on 15.7.1995 through some imposture at Dehradun by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyavan, who got the exparte order by publication of the information at Lucknow on 30-9-2004 and thereafter another order dated 14.3.2007 without following the procedure prescribed and thereby curtailing the rights of the petitioner as legal heir and successor over the estate of her husband Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena. Thus filing of the present Representation is very essential.
75. That when Late Kailash Narain Saxena was bed ridden and crippled even for performing his routine functioning for his survival alone in the year of 1995 and in presence of legal successor having the legal and juristic possession on such land, where three person have simultaneously initiated their claim over one property of Late Kailash Narain Saxena and initiated multiple proceedings, one after another bearing Mutation Case No, 5/60 of 1996-97 Ramu Versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on basis of Forged will manufactured on 18.7.1985), Mutation Case No. nil of 1997-98 Vijay Laxmi versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 25.1.1995, Mutation Case No. 3/9/81 of 1998-99 Ramesh Singh Yadav and Kalicharan versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 15.7.1995), on which, the petitioner, being widow of late Kailash Narain Saxena lodged even F.I.R. bearing case Crime No. 242 of 2005 at P.S. Sadar, Kotwali, Dehradun section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. Police station Kotwali, District Dehradun in the state of Uttaranchal and Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow refuses to consolidate all such file in Mutation Case No. 3/9/81 of 1998-99 Ramesh Singh Yadav and Kalicharan versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 15.7.1995) on 8.02.2007 and S.D.M. Baxi Ka Talab transfer such file on 14.02. 2007 to Naib Tehsildar , Etauza, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow and on 14.03. 2007 the property of late Kailash Narain Saxena, the husband of petitioner is order to be recorded in name of Ramesh Singh Yadav , who is confine in jail and committed murder of care taker upon the land of petitioner on 22.7.2005.
76. That there is the case of JURISTIC SUCCESSION in favour of deponent and her daughters upon Ancestral Property belonging to the husband of the Deponent. Heirs of the Deceased are entitled to mutation against those who have no LEGAL POSSESSION. That the possession of Rank Trespasser cannot be taken in account.
77. That the possession of the deponent over the land belonging to her husband i.e. the estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena is still there through her power of attorney dated 14-10-1999 and despite the murder committed by Ramesh Singh Yadav on the aforesaid land on 22-7-2005, such criminal, who is known land Mafia in the area, and the F.I.R. in case crime no. 242 of 2005 P.S. Kotwali Dehradun pertaining to the forged will manufactured by him through some imposture at Dehradun is still under investigation. Thus the orders passed on 8-2-2007, 14-2-2007 and 14-3-2007 by the different authorities at Buxi Ka Talab behind the back of the deponent are the orders without jurisdiction and the same are void-ab-initio.
78. That it is prayed that the time bound period may be fixed to the revenue authority to get the mutation of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record over the land belonging to her husband within a short time period and the Revenue Authorities may be directed to decide the case within the time given to such authority. Since the Petitioner can not stay for more than few dates and the frequent visit has been prohibited by the Doctor for conducting the journey from Dehradun to Lucknow and as such the entire proceedings of the mutation case may be decided within a time frame work after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner.
79. That this Hon’ble court has already taken the note of such type of the plight of the living dead farmer who was declared deceased during their lifetime. This Hon’ble court in the public interest litigation Suo- motto on the basis of report published in New-York Times, America took cognizance to such report on behalf on behalf of the “ Association of the dead People Versus State of U.P.” reported in (2000) Vol. I Selected Allahabad Cases page 374 directed the authority to make the detailed inquiry and the individuals were directed to approach the authorities, Police Administration and National Human Right Commission. The true copy of judgement the “ Association of the dead People Versus State of U.P.” reported in (2000) Vol. I Selected Allahabad Cases page 374 is filed as Annexure No.39 to the Representation.
80. That this Hon’ble court has already directed in Chandra Bhan Case (2006) vol.1 S.A.C.206 to the Principal Secretary Revenue to give the empowerment of the Revenue work to such individual, who have the Judicial acumen ship for deciding such cases. The true copy of judgement in the Chandra Bhan Case (2006) vol.1 S.A.C.206 is filed as Annexure No.40 to the Representation.
It is therefore most respectfully submitted that a departmental inquiry be initiated against the erring officials, who remained in connivance of land grabber and the authority may be directed to record the name of applicant on account her being juristic legal successes or , nominee and heir over the agriculture land Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun having his Sankramaniya Bhumidhar over the Khasara Plots no. 621 area 2.630 Hectare, 808 area 0.332 Hectare, 811-Ka area 0.048 Hectare and also over Khasara Plot no. 807 area 4 Bigha 14 Biswa and Khasara Plot no. 832 area 1.372 Hectare. After his death Khasara Plot no. 621. 808 and 811-Ka remained under joint tenure holding of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and Sri Ram Mohan Saxena, while the Khasara Plot no. 807 was separately recorded in the name of Kailash Narain Saxena, while Khasara Plot no. 832 remain recorded in the name of Sri Ram Mohan Saxena situated at Village Sarora, Mazra Bhudhpurava, Tehsil Baxi- Ka Talab, Lucknow. The authorities may be restrained for deciding the matter pertaining to the aforesaid land till decision may not be taken by your honour in furtherance of the direction contain in the judgement dated 5.11.2007 passed by Hon’ble High Court.
(Applicant)
Smt. Madhuri Saxena, aged about 72 years wife of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Permanent Resident of Village-Sarora Bhudpurwa, Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, at present R/O-51/3 Haridwar Road, Dehradun
Copy To- Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab For Violation of the Mandate of Section 192-A of Land Revenue Act In passing the Order on 8.2.2007 refered to above
Copy To – Naib Tehsildar , Etauza for intimation regarding passing of an order dated 15-3-2007 on the application seeking setting aside of the exparte order was passed on 30.09.2004 passed in mutation case No.3/6/9/1993, but deciding the case in violation of the case against the mandate of section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Through
YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT,
CHAMBER NO. 139, High Court, ALLAHABAD
R/O H.I.G.-203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem Sarai, Allahabad.
That the land Grabber have initiated the proceedings one by one after acquainted with the particulars of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena having the legal right of successes ion Smt. Madhuri Saxena, aged about 72 years wife of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Permanent Resident of Village-Sarora Bhudpurwa, Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, at present R/O-51/3 Haridwar Road, Dehradun through successive cases in Mutation Case No. 5/60 of 1996-97 Ramu S/o Hanuman r/o Bhoorpurva of village- Sarora Bhudpurwa, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow versus Estate Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun by inducting a fabricated and forged will dated 18.7.1985, thumb impression placed on the alleged fabricated will Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun , another Mutation Case No of 1997-98 Vijay Laxmi Tiwari D/O Rameshwar Prasad W/O Ved Prakash Tiwari, Versus Estate Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun a property dealer of property having his shop situated near Railway Crossing at Daliganj, Lucknow for getting another fabricated Will dated 25.1.1995 manufactured, Ramesh Singh S/o Kali Charan R/o Village Roshanabad, Mazra- Ghaila ,Pargana, Tehsil and District- Lucknow and Ram Jiyawan S/O Gajraj R/O Khale Ka Purva, Mazara Sarora, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow through the affiliation of then Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar, Etauza at Tehsil- Baxi Ka Talab planned to induct for another will Mutation Case no. 3/6/9/83 filed by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan in the year 1998- 1999 Versus Estate Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun which the exparte order was passed on 30.09.2004 regarding the same property belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena of forged Will was inducted ,Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab was declined to consolidate by order dated 8.2.2007 these cases in violation of the Mandate of Section 192-A of Land Revenue Act and order dated 14.3.2007 by Naib Tehsildar, Etauza deciding proceeding in violation of Section 201 of Land Revenue Act.
The Humble widow having all the three daughter married is Craving for deciding these Question and also the representation by framing certain question before the highest authority for kind consideration of your honour:-
Whether it was not the duty of Revenue Authorities to consolidate all three files and to get the name of legal successor being mutated by getting the matter pending in three simultaneously instituted proceeding from the year of 1996 may at least be decided by Mutation Authorities by taken the least sympathetic view?
Whether deciding one case in favour of one Mutation Case No. 3/6/9/1983 of 1998-99 in isolation of one land grabber by keeping other Mutation cases pending is voilative of section 192-A of Land Revenue Act and the same prohibited under Section 10 C.P.C, as will as constructive Res- judicata and the authorities have became conspirator with Land Mafia?
Whether it is not evident in case of Association of Dead People case and this Hon’ble Court In Chandra Bhan Case directed to create some Judicial discipline in revenue courts by deploying person with judicial acumen ship , entire proceedings of mutation case No. 3/6/9/1983 of 1998-99 be set aside and declared as null and void?
Whether some of the important questions of law are formulated in reference to the controversy, propriety and jurisdiction of the present mutation proceedings in case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 initiated by the land Mafia on the basis of frivolous Will purported to be manufactured through imposture by looking into the documents on records filed for seeking the name of the petitioner being entered in earlier mutation case no.5/60/1996-97 over the same property:-
· What is the sanctity of the unregistered wills in the mutation proceedings when the wife of the deceased being the legal successor and in juristic possession over the land in dispute is claiming her right for substitution in place of her husband?
· Whether on a particular land belonging to the husband of petitioner late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, if 3 successive claims through forged and illegal wills by the rank usurper on the basis of such frivolous and manufactured wills are set up before the mutation courts, the legal successors may not be given entry in revenue record on account of having the legal possession over the property in dispute?
· Whether the frivolous entry made in revenue record on the basis of frivolous unregistered will are not sufficient to make transaction of the said land and to get the proceedings under section 145 being decided on the basis of such entry or they may not mortgage such land for taking the loan from the financial institution and as such the legal right of the petitioner conferred under Article 14,19(1)(g), 21 as well as Article 300-A of the constitution of India are directly infringed?
· Whether the mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 filed by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan on the basis of fabricated will dated 15-7-1995 and on account of his criminal act of committing cheating and forgery, a case crime no. 242 of 2005 u/s 420/467/468/471/506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Dehradun was not sufficient evidence to preclude him from having the entry recorded in exparte manner on 30-9-2004 and by an order dated 14.3.2007 again the said order without recording any finding or opportunity of being heard may be passed by mutation court?
· Whether even after taking note of the case law inre: Association of Dead People (2000) 1 S.C.C. page 374 and the case of Chandra Bhan reported in 2006 (1) S.C.C. page 206, this Hon’ble Court may not take the judicial notice of the frivolous proceedings initiated by the rank usurper by declaring a living individual as the dead person and thereby grabbing of his property through unregistered will in the life time of such individual?
· Whether the mandate issued by incorporating the provisions of 192-A by U.P. Act no. 57 of 1976 in Land Revenue Act regarding consolidation of the cases and thereby filing of the application with such request before the Revenue court may not be sufficient to declare every order passed on 8.2.2007, 14.2.2007 and 14.3.2007 by the mutation court may not make them as null and void?
· Whether the mutation court after transfer of one case no. 3/6/9/83 before Naib Tehsildar Etauza on 14.2.2007, can this court without issuing any notice to the petitioner may decide the restoration application u/s 201 of the Land Revenue Act on 14.3.2007 without giving any information to the petitioner?
· Whether the revenue court while deciding the application under section 201 of Land Revenue Act was not duty bound to decide the question in relations to the sufficient cause of non-appearance of the petitioner in absence of any notice and to see the failure of justice and as such since the restoration application is dismissed without fulfillment of such requirement, the order passed on 14.3.2007 shall be deemed to be an order passed under inherent lack of jurisdiction and as such the present Representation is maintainable?
1. That at the very outset, it is submitted that there can not be any mutation entry pertaining to the land belonging to her husband on the basis of such forged will, pertaining to the period, when Late Kailash Narain Saxena was bed ridden and crippled even for performing his routine functioning for his survival alone in the year of 1995 and in presence of legal successor having the legal and juristic possession on such land, where three person have simultaneously initiated their claim over one property of Late Kailash Narain Saxena and initiated multiple proceedings, one after another bearing Mutation Case No, 5/60 of 1996-97 Ramu Versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena ( on basis of Forged will manufactured on 18.7.1985), Mutation Case No. 1997-98 Vijay Laxmi versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 25.1.1995, Mutation Case No. 3/9/81 of 1998-99 Ramesh Singh yadav and Kalicharan versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 15.7.1995), on which , the petitioner, being widow of late Kailash Narain Saxena lodged even F.I.R. bearing case Crime No. 242 of 2005 at P.S. sadar, Kotwali , Dehradun section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. Police station Kotwali, District Dehradun in the state of Uttaranchal and Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow refuses to consolidate all such file in Mutation Case No. 3/9/81 of 1998-99 Ramesh Singh Yadav and Kalicharan versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 15.7.1995) on 8.02.2007 and S.D.M. Baxi Ka Talab transfer such file on 14.02. 2007 to Naib Tehsildar , Etauza, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow and on 14.03. 2007 the property of late Kailash Narain Saxena, the husband of petitioner is order to be recorded in name of Ramesh Singh Yadav , who is confine in jail and committed murder of care taker upon the land of petitioner on 22.7.2005.
2. That the entire proceedings are abuse of the process in mutation court and it has become a mockery of the judicial proceeding by transgression of discretionary power by eroding the very foundation of Rule of Law in the Society as well as democratic set up of our system.
3. That filing of the present Representation is expedient on account of the facts that over the Estate belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, the mutation case no. 5/60 of 1996 (Ramu s/o Hanuman Vs. Estate of Late Kailash Narain Saxena) remain pending before the Mutation Court’s of Naib Tehsildar Etauza and Tehsildar Buxi ka Talab, Lucknow since the year 1996 and the matter was agitated by filing the revision before the Board of Revenue, in which the stay order remained operative staying the further proceedings of the aforesaid mutation case, but the Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyavan no. 7 and 8 by filing another case bearing Mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 (Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan Vs. Estate of Late Kailash Narain Saxena) got the proceedings initiated on the basis of another forged unregistered will dated 15-7-1995 and got the proceedings of this mutation case being decided on 30-9-2004 separately without giving any opportunity of being heard in exparte manner and when the petitioner became conversant and filed her application for setting aside the exparte order dated 30-9-2004 and sought for consolidation of both the files decided together in respect of same cause of action in consonance with the mandate of section 192-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the said applications have been dismissed on 8-2-2007 and thereafter the case was transferred by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate Buxi ka Talab on 14.2.2007 again behind the back of petitioner and thereafter the Mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 (Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan Vs. Estate of Late Kailash Narain Saxena) has been decided separately on 14.3.2007 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and as such the present Representation is filed seeking the setting aside of the orders dated 8-2-2007 and 14.2.2007 and the subsequent proceedings in furtherance of the order dated 14.3.2007 are sought to be set aside.
4. That this Representation filed for setting aside the entire Mutation proceedings initiated by the Criminals Mafia Land grabber before the Revenue Authority to get their names entered in the revenue records by manufacturing the forged, fictitious unregistered Wills allegedly claiming to be the testamentary successors in order to usurp the rights of the petitioner over the ancestral revenue land belonging to her husband lying in the Village Sarora Bhudpurwa, Tehsil-Baxi Ka Talab at Lucknow, as even after the expiry of more than 11 years of continuous efforts made by the petitioner, she could not be able to get her name entered as successor in place of her deceased husband.
5. That now if the petitioner in view of threatening given to her from last so many years may still be compelled to attend the proceedings, which starts after 1 to 2 P.M in the courts below generally after prolong waiting through out the day, there is apprehension and threatening given to her for being killed from the year of 2004 continuously after 30. 9.2004 Ex parte order obtained by criminal Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan. Thus there is no other option after approaching to every higher authority to take the shelter of this court as these proceedings in changed criminally charged atmosphere are no the Summery Proceedings, but the warrant of death and the easiest method to deprive any individual from her life and personnel liberty and also the rights of property in most arbitrary manner in collusion with revenue authorities and as such present Representation may be entertained as the petitioner is permanent citizen of another State Of Uttaranchal.
6. That late Sri Ram Narain Lal, the father in law’s of the petitioner remained recorded as Sankramaniya Bhumidhar over the Khasara Plots no. 621 area 2.630 Hectare, 808 area 0.332 Hectare, 811-Ka area 0.048 Hectare and also over Khasara Plot no. 807 area 4 Bigha 14 Biswa and Khasara Plot no. 832 area 1.372 Hectare. After his death Khasara Plot no. 621. 808 and 811-Ka remained under joint tenure holding of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and Sri Ram Mohan Saxena, while the Khasara Plot no. 807 was separately recorded in the name of Kailash Narain Saxena, while Khasara Plot no. 832 remain recorded in the name of Sri Ram Mohan Saxena.
7. That since Khasara Plot no. 621, 807, 808, 811-Ka and 832 measuring about 15 acres remained recorded in the joint tenure holdership of Kailash Narain Saxena and Ram Mohan Saxena as the property obtained through their ancestors, without having the partitions thereof to their respective share and without having the consent from the co-sharer, these plots may not be sold.
8. That the petitioner Smt. Madhuri Saxena is the wife of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena. Sri Kailash Narain Saxena was posted as Superintendent Geophysics under Oil and Natural Gas commission, who compulsorily retired prematurely on 16.05.1988 (A.N.) from the post of Superintendent Geo-physicist due to his paralytic stroke during his posting on the said post.
9. That Sri Kailash Narain Saxena died on 10.1.1996 after prolong ailments and completely bed ridden from 1990 onward after his compulsory retirement from govt. service in 1988, leaving behind his widow Smt. Madhuri Saxena and three daughters namely Pragati Saxena, Jagriti Saxena and Dr. Smriti Saxena as the successors of the landed property. Smt. Pragati Saxena (now Mitra) is now posted as Superintendent Geo-physicist and her husband Mr. P.P. Mitra is also posted at a high-ranking designation. All the daughters are married and they are the legal owner and successors of the property in dispute.
10. That subsequently his condition was further deteriorated and he executed Power of Attorney in favour of his wife namely the petitioner for looking after his ancestral agriculture landed property situated at Lucknow and the other constructed shops situated at District- Lakhimpur Khiri. After his retirement Sri Kailash Narain Saxena became incapable, crippled, unconscious state of mind and lying on death bed after compulsory retirement even for writing and for meeting of his daily requirement of taking of food and for attending the call of nature. The active support was required to be given to him continuously after his paralytic ailment till his death, which took place on 10.01.1996.
11. That Sri Kailash Narain Saxena died leaving behind her widow namely the petitioner and three daughters namely Pragati Saxena, Jagriti Saxena and (Dr.) Smriti Saxena at Dehradun. Smt. Pragati Saxena and her husband are settled at Delhi.
12. That another daughter of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and the petitioner namely Smt. Jagriti Saxena is M.A B. Ed. and having the post graduate Diploma in Software. She is now married with a businessman at Dehradun.
13. That the youngest daughter Smt. (Dr.) Smriti Saxena is a Doctor with a diploma in Gynecology and is posted in Military Hospital Dehradun. Thus on account of the involvement of all the three daughters with their family members, none of the daughters or their husbands are in a position to provide the assistance to the petitioner for looking after the cases pending at Tehsil -Baxi Ka Talab in Lucknow.
14. That Sri Ram Mohan Saxena went to Germany and became German Citizen and his respective share was also being managed by Sri Kailash Narain Saxena during his life time and after the death of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, the petitioner was looking after the entire landed property and managing the affair of cultivation through some care-taker namely Hanuman Prasad. Firstly Ramesh Singh got half of the property recorded in name of Ram Mohan Saxena purchased without given any information to any one relative regarding pendency of case no. 3/6/9/1983 of 1998-99 and to present counsel of petitioner and got transaction on 20. 9. 2004 at Baxi ka Talab in name of his son and Minor Son and got their name recorded illegally, as rest of the property was proposed to usurp by creating the forged will at Dehradun and there after got the ex- parte order on 30.9.2004 U/ S 34 of L.R.Act.
15. That stimulated by impulse of unscrupulous greed to get the undue advantage of her family set up by the rustic element with Criminal back grounds, have purported to get the fabricated Will being manufactured as to take over the possession of the land belonging to the petitioner.
16. That firstly the forged Will was inducted by one Ramu S/o Hanuman r/o Bhoorpurva of village- Sarora Bhudpurwa, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow by inducting a fabricated and forged will for which apart from the contest in mutation proceedings by Smt. Madhuri Saxena before Tehsildar- Baxi ka Talab, District- Lucknow, as the criminal proceeding were initiated against him.
17. That the son of Hanuman Prasad namely one Ramu got a fabricated will being manufactured under the alleged thumb impression of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, which was alleged to have been manufactured on 10-7-1985. It is submitted that in the aforesaid allege will manufactured on 10-7-1985, Sri Kailash Narain Saxena was shown to be running at the age of 70 years, which the date of birth of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as mentioned in service records and in High School certificate was 7-7-1933 and thus in the year of 1985 Sri Kailash Narain Saxena was running at the age of 52 years. He remained on duty with Oil and Natural Gas commission at Dehradun through out the month of July, 1985 and there was no casual leave or any earned leave taken by Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and as per the Calendar it was found that 10-7-1985 was a public holiday. That when the mutation proceedings initiated by Ramu son of Hanuman by fabricating the alleged thumb impression of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as on 10.7.85, wherein the forged death certificate issued by the village Pradhan was filed to get the name of Ramu recorded.
18. That when the thumb impression placed on the alleged fabricated will was compared with the thumb impression of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as Sri Kailash Narain Saxena got a mortgage deed executed on 5-8-1972 for the purposes of taking loan from the O.N.G.C. Dehradun where he was employed, then it came to the notice that the thumb impression placed in the said manufactured will is a forged and fabricated thumb impression of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena.
19. That firstly the litigation was filed by filing a Criminal case of cheating against Ramu son of Hanuman and his alleged witness namely Matadin, who were closely associated with the Village Pradhan namely one Babu lal Verma village- Sarora, Baxi Ka Talab at Lucknow. The Village Pradhan issued the forged death certificate of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena indicating his incorrect date of death being taken place on 18.3.1996. For manufacturing the fabricated Will, the imposture of some fabricated thumb impression was made in order to concoct the alleged Will as of 10.7.1985, when Kailash Narain Saxena was very much present at Dehradun and was posted and working as Superintendent Geophysicist in O.N.G.C. Department.
20. That the petitioner contested the matter by filing a complaint case no. 4651 of 1996 under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C read with section 34 and 120-B I.P.C against Ramu son of Hanuman and Matadin as well as against the Village Pradhan Babu lal Verma. All the three accused were arrested in the said case.
21. That the statement of petitioner was recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on 22.11.1996 where the petitioner has categorically stated that on 10-7-1985 Sri Kailash Narain Saxena was at Dehradun and he was not running at the age of 70 year, while his actual age was 52 years at that time. The death certificate issued by Babu Lal Pradhan was also manufactured by stating the date of death of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as on 28-9-1995, while he actually died on 10.1.1996. That thereafter Ramu got the green trees of Mango Plant cut down from the Agriculture land belonging to the petitioner. Thus another case of cheating was registered against Ramu for the aforesaid Crime.
22. That the first information report was lodged by the petitioner against Ramu for cutting down the green mango trees which was bearing case crime no. 374 of 1996, u/s 379 I.P.C. r/w 4/10 P.C.T. Act, P.S. Mariyan Sadar, Lucknow on 4.8.1996.
23. That in this manner when the proceedings of mutation case no. 5/60 Ramu Versus Kailash Narain Saxena were initiated against the petitioner by setting up the purported claim set up by Ramu son of Hanuman and thereafter a revision petition no.70 of 1996-97 was filed by the petitioner, in which the Board of Revenue on 14.05.1997 stayed the further proceedings of Case No. 5/60. The aforesaid stay order was further extended on 6.5.2000. A report was sought on the behest of another land grabber Ramesh Singh from the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) on 10.02.2003 and as such it was recorded that the fresh case filed by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan was filed bearing Mutation Case No.3/6/9/83 before another Naib Tehsildar on 20.07.2004, allegedly in furtherance of some order passed by Board of Revenue on 22. 10.2003.
24. That since a Mutation Case no. 5/60 of 1996-97 was filed by Ramu against the Estate of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena which was pending in the court of Naib Tehsildar Etauda Tehsil- Bakashi Ka Talab, the petitioner engaged counsel for contesting the aforesaid proceedings of mutation case based upon such fabricated and manufactured documents. On the advise of these counsels instead of contesting the matter on merit against Ramu, it was advised to move the transfer application before the Board of Revenue, which was filed bearing T.A. no. 70 of 1996-97 and on 14-5-1997 the further proceedings of mutation court of Naib Tehsildar B.K.T. Lucknow in case no. 5/60 of 1996-97 were stayed by fixing 15-10-1997 in the said case.
25. That the petitioner has also sought for requisition of original mortgage deed dated 9-8-1972 from the court of Naib Tehsildar, Buxi Ka Talab to verify the thumb impression by the writing expert as placed on the fabricated will dated 10-7-1985 and in pursuance thereof the signature of Late Kailash Narain Saxena were became available for making the imposture of the same in the subsequent will..
26. That since the petitioner filed the power of attorney executed by her husband on 11.5.1990 in favour of the petitioner for looking after the said property and in the said power of attorney virtually every power of transfer was given to the petitioner and as such the subsequent will were manufactured by seeing the style of signature of late Kailash Narain Saxena from the aforesaid power of attorney submitted by the petitioner before the court below having the complaint case no. 4667 of 1996 pending before Addl. Civil Judge, Lucknow.
27. The petitioner came into contact with Ved Prakash Tiwari, who after getting further information in respect of the property belonging to Kailash Narain Saxena, got inducted his wife Vijay Laxmi Tiwari D/O Rameshwar Prasad for getting another fabricated Will manufactured, however she filed the mutation case, but on account of the fact that the criminal proceedings were initiated against the other person, she did not pursue the matter any further till date. The aforesaid alleged Will was allegedly manufactured on 25.1.1995 with fabricated signature of Kailash Narain Saxena. Superintendent Geophysicist at Dehradun.
28. That this person after being conversant regarding the pathetic situation of the family, it appears that other person colluded with one Ved Prakash Tiwari, a property dealer of property having his shop situated near Railway Crossing at Daliganj, Lucknow for unlawfully taking over the aforesaid agriculture landed property and he got another will manufactured in the name of Smt. Vijay Laxmi, the name of his wife, but anyhow, due to some remote consideration the same was again substituted by another fabricated will.
29. That, one Pyarey lal son of Sri Raghunandan and Mathura Prasad Yadav son of Sri Haripal Yadav Resident of Village-Sarora Bhudpurwa, Budhpurwa, Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab got some document prepared allegedly to contest these litigation as power of attorney holder, for which the payment of some dues and future profit amount was given to Smt. Madhuri Saxena, but it has come to the notice of Smt. Madhuri Saxena that the same is a purported document of agreement to Sale, as is being told to Smt. Madhuri Saxena later on.
30. That aforesaid Document alleged and purported Agreement to Sale to have been Executed on 13-11- 1999 was cancelled being a forged and Fabricated Document executed by misleading & misrepresentation to her and there by a fraud has been committed upon the petitioner. They have not paid their dues lying against Sri Kailash Narain Saxena during his lifetime, but paid it to petitioner through some bank Drafts as such the said amount is also adjusted in lieu of the profit earned by them.
31. That at this stage it is also relevant to mention here that since the name of the petitioner Smt. Madhuri Saxena was not even recorded as the tenure holder over the land in dispute on account of the fact that Ramu son of Hanuman had already moved an application seeking mutation of his name in place of the name of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and as such no such agreement of sale could have been executed on 13.10.1999 in favour of the plaintiff and as such the petitioner was deceived in a preplanned conspiracy hatched by her own counsel. The alleged agreement to sale was prepared through the active coordination by the Sub Registrar, Baxi ka Talab for some extraneous consideration for which the petitioner was given impression that it is only the power of attorney executed by herself and the counsel wanted to provide her the financial assistance by realizing the money in lieu of the benefit and proposed benefits accrued to the plaintiffs from the production of crops , sale of the wood of mango and other trees and also the security amount, which will be adjusted if the profit earned by the plaintiffs to the extent of anticipated amount of Rs.18,500/- per year shall not be paid by the plaintiffs in future, if the litigation in the mutation court may prolong for a longer period and the criminal cases filed against Ramu may not be decided. Thus the suit of permanent injunction on the basis of the alleged fabricated registered agreement said to have been executed by the petitioner on 13/14-10-1999, is not maintainable.
32. That nothing was given to the Petitioner by the power of attorney in furtherance of said document dated 14-10-1999 in lieu of the earning made through the agriculture land belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena after 13.10.1999 and when the defendant enquired about the payment of the annual income from the agriculture land as determined amounting to Rs.5000/- per year, then it came to the notice of the defendant that some purported agreement to sale document has been obtained in the deceptive manner through coercion and undue influence of the Advocate in connivance with the plaintiffs, to whom she had engaged for looking after her cases of mutation proceedings, criminal cases and for supervising the property by the plaintiff respectively.
33. That it is relevant to mention here that although it is alleged on 14.10.1999 in respect of possession of enjoyment and cultivation of the land belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner have themselves stated for making the regular payment of Rs. 5000/- per year, but no such payment has been made apart from the agreed portion of the profit made from the crops as the counsel and the plaintiffs stated earlier that the same may be reimbursed in the security deposit of Rs.1,10,000/- by deducting Rs.18,500/- per year inclusive of Rs.5000/- and as such after the expiry of more than 7 ½ years the entire amount paid as security amount has been adjusted towards the cost of the profit earned by cultivating the crops in dispute. Thus there is no right of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute, nor they can claim any right for the alleged specific performance on the basis of the fabricated documents dated 13-10-1999 against the petitioner.
34. That the petitioner has already given the notice to the plaintiffs as well as to the Sub Registrar registration department, Baxi ka Talab on 27-5-2005 simultaneously of filing the affidavit before the Revenue court. The complaint regarding the cheating, forgery and criminal tress-pass by the plaintiff has already been made to the Chief Secretary, District Magistrate, and Senior Superintendent of Police and also to Tehsildar Baxi Ka Talab in respect of the encroachment over the valuable right of property belonging to the petitioner. They have also given this information and thereby you have committed and offence of criminal trespass in the aforesaid process. It is brought to you notice that after the amendment in Uttar Pradesh by U. P. Act. No 31 of 1961, every unauthorized possession over others land is criminal trespass with affect from 13.11.1961, and as such the possession taken over the said land belonging to Smt Madhuri Saxena the widow of Late Shri Kailash Narain Saxena is a criminal trespass.
35. That the alleged agreement purported to have been manufactured on 13-10-1999 is in itself illegal and void as the same is pertaining to the purported future right based upon the succession in favour of the petitioner over the ancestral land belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, who died leaving behind three daughters having their respective shares in the agriculture land and as such no suit of permanent injunction could have been filed without impleading the necessary parties and without impleading the true owner in respect of the land, against whom the purported document is said to forfeit their respective right of ownership. The suit is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action or any right is available to the plaintiffs for filing the suit No. 740 of 2005. Such suit is barred under the provisions of law. The same is also barred under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as section 34(5) of the Land Revenue Act. This suit is also barred under section 171/172 as the same has been filed to deprive the right of succession of the widow having an interest in the survivorship and is meant for taking away the rights of the daughters from the land belonging to their deceased father.
36. That another Land Mafia namely Ramesh Singh S/o Kali Charan R/o Village Roshanabad, Mazra- Ghaila ,Pargana, Tehsil and District- Lucknow and Ram Jiyawan S/O Gajraj R/O Khale Ka Purva, Mazara Sarora, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow through the affiliation of then Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar at Tehsil- Baxi Ka Talab planned to induct for another will in respect of the said property belonging to late Shri Kailash Narain Saxena .
37. That after all these proceeding initiated by the petitioner as per legal advise given to her and the petitioner continued to perform, whatever has been directed by her counsel for protecting her rights. It appears that subsequently taking the advantage of old age of petitioner since the proceeding were tedious and petitioner was not in a position to look after these proceedings of mutation case no. 5/60 of 1996-1997 filed by Ramu, the power of attorney was advised to have been issued in favour of one Pyare Lal and Mathura Prasad, who appeared to have procure some documents clandestinely registered as the alleged agreement to sale. It is submitted that Naib Tehsildar Etauza in furtherance of the stay order granted by Board of Revenue stayed the further proceedings of Mutation Case no. 5/60 of 1996-1997 on 6-5-2000, but Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan the subsequent inductor of another forged will dated 15-7-1995 moved some transfer application before him in another mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 filed by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan in the year 1998 on 19-12-2002 and without looking into the fact that the say order was continuing in pursuance of the order passed by Board of Revenue on 20-10-2003 during pendency of revision decided on 20.7.2004, these land mafia after manufacturing the forged will got the service effected upon the petitioner through publication and ultimately succeeded to get an exparte order on 30-9-2004.
38. That it is pertinent to mention here that in spite the appearance of the petitioner in mutation Case No. 5 /60 of 1996-97, the petitioner already appeared as the legal heir and successor and as such there was no question of entertaining the application of Ramesh Singh on the basis of his alleged Will.
39. That it is relevant to mention here that the revenue authorities have acted in collusion with Ramesh Singh son of Kali Charan Yadav, who was having the money power just to grab the property of the innocent persons.
40. That in the Ex- Parte order passed on 30.09.2004, it is recorded that the notice was sent to the petitioner at her permanent residential address i.e. at Village Sarora Bhudpurwa Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow, while admittedly the petitioner was residing at Dehradun along with her daughter Dr. Smriti Saxena, which was apparent on the record of said file.
41. That it is also said that even the publication in the local paper at Baxi Ka Talab. This was fabricate and allegedly done for giving notice to the petitioner and there after recorded in the said order that she did not appear. Then the ex-parte order Dt. 30.9.2004 directing the name of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan was recorded on the basis of the alleged Will, Which is said to have been made and manufactured on 15.7.1997 at Dehradun through fictitious attesting Notary.
42. That thereafter in order to get the usurpation to the entire land, the forged Will purported to be manufactured at Dehradun was made the document for getting the name of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan recorded in the revenue record by the exparte order passed by 30.09.2004.
43. That the objections were filed under Section 201 of Land Revenue Act on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter many dates were fixed upto Feb. 2005 but the name so recorded in exparte manner without giving any information to the petitioner, still remained continue on the file of the mutation case pertaining to the Estate of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena.
44. That at the same time, since the daughters of petitioner were married and there was the difficulty faced by the petitioner to appear in the aforesaid cases on every date, it was advised to the petitioner by her counsel in connivance with the plaintiff to get the Power of Attorney given to them to look after the pending matters and for that purposes, it was settled that the plaintiffs may provide the substantial amount for looking after the mango tree plants and they will also harvest the crops for which an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- each will be paid towards the cost of the trees and also the similar amount as the security. An amount of Rs.59,500/- was also settled for being paid as the money earned from the crops harvested during the intervening period.
45. That apart from this it was also agreed to pay the annual profit earned through such land and it was assured to the petitioner that after getting the name of the petitioner being recorded as the tenure holder alongwith her daughters, the land will be vested with the legal successors and heirs of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena in due course of time.
46. That it appears that by taking the advantage of all such wrong legal advise to pursue the matter before the court of Board of Revenue instead of contesting the matter from Ramu on its merit, in order to make the case further complicated and after getting the correct information through some sources, another case bearing case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 was filed by one Ramesh Singh son of Kali Charan R/o Roshanabad and by Sri Ram Jiyawan s/o Gajraj r/o Khalepurva Tehsil- Baxi Ka Talab, District- Lucknow for their alleged right through another forged will alleged to have been manufactured at Dehradun on 15-7-1995 through some Notary, in which the manufactured and forged signatures were made of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena by some imposture after looking into the other documents provided to the counsels . One Sri H.L. Srivastava has been shown to be the witness in the said will.
47. That thereafter this Ramesh Singh s/o Kalicharan resident of Roshanabad Mazra Ghaila Pargana, Tehsil and district Lucknow got the half share belonging to Sri Ram Mohan Saxena comprising of Khasara Plot no. 621, 808, 811-Ka recorded in joint share with Kailash Narain Saxena and Khasara Plot no. 832 area 1.372 Hectare purchased in the name of his major son Jai Singh and also in the name of the minor son Vishal Singh for an amount of Rs.26 Lacs on 21.9.2004, in which there was boring done and the tube-well installed by Sri Kailash Narain Saxena in the running condition, which have the valuation of more than Rs.30,000/- and the cost of four mango trees assessed as more than 16,000/- in the said sale deed.
48. That the petitioner is filing the report submitted to the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) on 04.01.2003 by Naib Tehsildar in respect of the application filed by Ramesh Singh, in which it was categorically mentioned that during the pendency of the mutation case No. 5/60 of 1996-97 Ramu Versus Kailash Narain Saxena seeking mutation of his name, no further application of Ramesh Singh for getting his name recorded in the revenue record on the Estate of Kailash Narain Saxena is maintainable.
49. That the real brother of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, namely Ram Mohan Saxena was shifted to Germany and as such the remaining half share of the real brother of Kailash Narain Saxena namely Kailash Narain Saxena looked after Sri Ram Mohan Saxena, during his life time and by the petitioner after the death of her husband Kailash Narain Saxena.
50. That Ram Mohan Saxena , now a German Citizen came to India. He was contacted by Ramesh Singh son of Kali Charan for disposing of his half of the share from the ancestral land belonging to his father and the father of Kailash Narain Saxena, late Sri Ram Narain Saxena at Khasra No. 621 area 2.630 Hectare, 808 area 0.332 Hectare, 811 Ka area 0.048 Hectare and Khasra no. 832 area 1.372 Hectare at Village Sarora, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow. The said deed was executed on 20.09.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 26,00,000 ( twenty six Lacs) in the name of the sons of Ramesh Singh, namely Jai Singh and Vishal Singh (minor). The recording of the name of the sons of Ramesh Singh, namely Jai Singh and Vishal Singh (minor) on the basis of such transaction is void.
51. That surprisingly enough to state that this Ramesh Singh And Ram Jiyawan filed another case seeking the mutation of their names in place of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena bearing mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1997-98 and without giving any knowledge to the petitioner, nor sending any summon at the residential address of Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena as well as of petitioner Smt. Madhuri Saxena, but they got an ex-parte order on 30-9-2004 just after 9 days of the execution of sale deed dated 21-9-2004 obtained clandestinely through Ram Mohan Saxena without having the partition of the share, nor making the payment of the cost of the Tube-well, four mango plants and other accessories.
52. That it is relevant to mention here that the mutation court of Naib Tehsildar was not even authorised to register another mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1997-98 and to pass the ex-parte order on 30-9-2004 in favour of Ramesh Singh s/o Kali charan and Ram Jiyawan when already the comments were already furnished on 4.1.2003 to the Addl. Collector Admn. Lucknow in this regard by Naib Tehsildar Itauza, Tehsil- Bakshi Ka Talab Lucknow.
53. That nothing was given to the petitioner by the plaintiff in lieu of the earning made through the agriculture land belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena after 13.10.1999 and when the petitioner enquired about the payment of the annual income from the agriculture land as determined amounting to Rs.5000/- per year, then it came to the notice of the petitioner that some purported agreement to sale document has been obtained in the deceptive manner through coercion and undue influence of the Advocate in connivance with the plaintiffs, to whom she had engaged for looking after her cases of mutation proceedings, criminal cases and for supervising the property by the plaintiff respectively.
54. That the first information report has already been lodged against Ramesh Singh s/o Kali Charan and Ram Jiyawan in Police station Kotwali, District Dehradun, wherein the purported alleged will in favour of Ramesh Singh s/o Kali Charan and Ram Jiyawan has been manufactured by these persons. A case crime no. 240 of 2005 under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. Police station Kotwali, District Dehradun in the state of Uttaranchal has been registered for their alleged will dated 15-7-1995, which has been shown to be attested at Dehradun through some Notary. Both the attesting witness of the said will alleged to have been executed in favour of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan could have been located by the petitioner, nor by the Police. The investigation is still going on for which the efforts have been made by the petitioner and her daughter Dr. Smriti Saxena holding diploma in gynecology and presently posted in Military Hospital Dehradun.
55. That it appears that due to the aforesaid unscrupulous greed stimulated by the impulse of the profit and thereby making the victim to the petitioner for depriving her from legitimate right of succession in the property belonging to her husband, there has been the murder committed on 22.7.2005 of one Chandoika Prasad by Ramesh Singh s/o Kali Charan alongwith his associates and all of them are confined in jail.
56. That the right of succession of an individual to inherit the property of her deceased husband by the petitioner may not be the subject matter of the frivolous mutation proceedings initiated by the land grabber through unregistered manufactured Wills for usurpation of the property worth of Rs. 26-35 Lacs and as such even after initiating the criminal cases against such person, the recording of their name in Revenue record on the basis of such forged Will by the revenue authority is clearly prohibited under law.
57. That the contest was made before the revenue authority by the legal heir, such authority shall cease to exercise their discretion in favour of an individual claiming such right on the basis of unregistered Will and as such to record the name of such criminal, still after the lodging of the First Information Report for committing the forgery in Will may tantamount as violation of the right conferred to the petitioner, under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
58. That as soon as petitioner came to know about such exparte order, passed in favour of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan, the recall application for setting aside the exparte order was filed within time on behalf of the petitioner. However in spite the Representation filed by the petitioner for getting the exparte order being set-aside, the exparte order dated 30.09.2004 has yet not been set-aside.
59. That there are ample of evidence showing deponent permanent residing at Dehradun and the purported will was itself manufactured on 15-7-1995, when Kailash Narain Saxena was having no conscience and was crippled who can neither write nor recognise any one and was not in a position to understand any thing, then how does the service was shown with wrong address and deemed to be effective by publication in some non circulated news paper evening news paper at Lucknow upon the Deponent. The case Crime No. 242 of 2005 for manufacturing the Forged will is pending, in which neither any Notary is Traceable nor witness of the forged will to the Police. Thus the order dated 14-3-2007 is an abuse of the process and passed for some extraneous consideration with malafide intention of Revenue Authorities at Baxi Ka Talab.
60. That the petitioner after being conversant regarding the alleged existence of the said purported will manufactured by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan, she lodged the First Information Report, bearing Case Crime No. 242 of 2005, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, Dehradun. Since there was neither existence of any Notary nor any witness Advocate was found practicing at Dehradun and as such the aforesaid case crime number has been registered against all such individuals who have manufactured the aforesaid Will.
61. That in the mean time, Ramesh Singh S/O Kalicharan committed the murder over the land belonging to the petitioner at Village Sarora Bhudpurwa Ramesh Singh is now confined in Jail on account of the aforesaid day light murder. However the ‘ B’ warrant has yet to be issued by the Police at Dehradun for conducting the further investigation in Case of forgery committed by Ramesh Singh son of Kalicharan and Ram Jiyawan for grabbing the property belonging the petitioner.
62. That in spite all such incidents the petitioner is craving the support from other close relatives as she may reach at Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab which is situated at the distance of about 18 Kilometers from Railway Station Lucknow. She is required to stay with one of the caretaker whenever she is attending the proceedings of the Revenue court situated at Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab.
63. That on 27.05.2005, the petitioner was threatened by the hatch men of the Land Mafia grabbing the property of other innocent citizens having no support of the locality. It was said by some of the miscreants at about 5 P.M on 27.05.2005 regarding the bad consequences, in case the petitioner may further visit at Baxi Ka Talab to get the exparte order passed in favour of Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyawan being set aside.
64. That the petitioner made the contact from her nephew Advocate, Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate practicing at Allahabad High Court to the S.D.M, Baxi Ka Talab and also with Tehsildar on 27.05.2005 and she was given an assurance by both these authorities that since all the complaints made by her have been taken cognizance by them and as such the appropriate order of setting aside the name of unauthorized person shall be done within no time but till date nothing has been done so far for illegal continuation of the name of the miscreants who have committed crime in manufacturing the Will and committed murder of the Care taker of the petitioner. That the petitioner given her power of attorney to her nephew to look after her interest in respect of property purported to Usurpation by all such land mafia and written a revocable Power of attorney in his favour to deal with the affairs of property belonging to Late Kailash Narain Saxena located at Baxi Ka Talab, at Lucknow.
65. That petitioner filed the representation to the Chief Secretary, District Magistrate, Lucknow and also to the S.S.P. Dehradun regarding grabbing of her land by Land Mafia and made the complaint to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh for giving permission to initiate the proceedings against the officials of Baxi Ka Talab who have acted in collusion with these criminals. However no action has been taken in all such complaints, which are lying along with the record of the mutation case No.3/6/9/1993 in which the exparte order was passed on 30.09.2004.
66. That it appears that Pyarey lal and another, who has been given power of attorney, who is also alleging his right on certain purported document said to have been manufacture under garb of obtaining the property after being mutated in name of petitioner has filed a suit against Ramesh lal and Ram Jiyawan , when their was apprehension of taking forcible possession on the land belonging to the petitioner and lying in petitioner’s possession till date. The First appellate court in misc. Appeal No. 155 of 2005 has already granted Injunction in favour of petitioner through her agent and power of attorney holder directing the Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyavan to maintain status quo regarding the nature of property on 18.10.2005 in getting Impugned order14.3.2007 and thus the impugned order passed on 14.3. 2007 is an order without jurisdiction.
67. That it is on record that Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab even after being conversant regarding the pendency of the initial Mutation Proceeding filed regarding the same property belonging to Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena of forged Will was inducted by one Ramu S/o Hanuman r/o Bhoorpurva of village- Sarora Bhudpurwa, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow in Mutation case No. 5/60 of 1996-97, for which apart from the contest in mutation proceedings by Smt. Madhuri Saxena before Tehsildar- Baxi ka Talab, District- Lucknow Revision No. 70/1996-97 pending before Board of Revenue dismissed as by the order dated 06-05-2000, the proceeding of mutation case pending before Naib Tehsildar, Etauza were remained stayed. However Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab was declined to consolidate both the cases.
68. That thereafter a transfer application was filed by Pyare lal and Mathura Prasad by leveling the allegation against Tehsildar regarding underhand dealing by filing a transfer application on the same date and got an order behind the back of the petitioner from the court of S.D.M. Baxi Ka Talab on 14.2.2007.
69. That the order has been passed on 14.3.2007 passed by Naib Tehsildar Etauza by putting every sort of judicial procedure being kept aside affecting the property rights of the petitioner without giving any information to the petitioner.
70. That the petitioner moved the complaint to every authorities and also to the chief Minister of U.P. stating therein that the conspiracy is hatched by these three person to usurp the ancestral property of the petitioner and the authorities at Baxi Ka Talab.
71. That firstly the application filed under section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act must be decided on the ground that the summons were not served at any point of time and the frivolous service while passing the impugned order on 14.3.2007 by Naib Tehsildar Etauza.
72. That the petitioner was surprise to receive the summon fixing 12.11.2007 in Appeal no. 46 of 2007-2007 filed by one Pyare Lal and Mathura Prasad challenging the order dated 14.3.2007.
73. That the petitioner thereafter requested the court of S.D.M. at Buxi Ka Talab on 12.11.2007 after being conversant first time regarding the orders dated 8.2.2007, 14.2.2007 and 14.3.2007 that she is not in position to approach the Hon’ble Court on account of her bronchial Asthma, diabetes and arthritis as she is running at the age of 72 years and she has got the risk of being killed by the hatch man of the Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyavan , who have threatened to her of the dire consequences, if she appeared to contest the case on the previous occasion earlier. However despite such request being made the petitioner was directed to file her reply by fixing 21.11.2007 and on such date the petitioner has submitted the adjournment application and her reply in support of cross appeal filed on 12.11.2007.
74. That instead of fixing any date after 4 weeks w.e.f. 16-11-2007 the date has been fixed on 3.12.2007 and on that date the single matter pertaining to the mutation case no. 3/6/9/83 of 1998-99 and the appeal filed in pursuance thereof only bearing appeal no. 45 of 2006-2007 may be decided in isolation without deciding other cases of the mutation filed on frivolous wills, on the basis of which the manufactured and fabricated will has been prepared on 15.7.1995 through some imposture at Dehradun by Ramesh Singh and Ram Jiyavan, who got the exparte order by publication of the information at Lucknow on 30-9-2004 and thereafter another order dated 14.3.2007 without following the procedure prescribed and thereby curtailing the rights of the petitioner as legal heir and successor over the estate of her husband Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena. Thus filing of the present Representation is very essential.
75. That when Late Kailash Narain Saxena was bed ridden and crippled even for performing his routine functioning for his survival alone in the year of 1995 and in presence of legal successor having the legal and juristic possession on such land, where three person have simultaneously initiated their claim over one property of Late Kailash Narain Saxena and initiated multiple proceedings, one after another bearing Mutation Case No, 5/60 of 1996-97 Ramu Versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on basis of Forged will manufactured on 18.7.1985), Mutation Case No. nil of 1997-98 Vijay Laxmi versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 25.1.1995, Mutation Case No. 3/9/81 of 1998-99 Ramesh Singh Yadav and Kalicharan versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 15.7.1995), on which, the petitioner, being widow of late Kailash Narain Saxena lodged even F.I.R. bearing case Crime No. 242 of 2005 at P.S. Sadar, Kotwali, Dehradun section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. Police station Kotwali, District Dehradun in the state of Uttaranchal and Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow refuses to consolidate all such file in Mutation Case No. 3/9/81 of 1998-99 Ramesh Singh Yadav and Kalicharan versus Estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena (on the basis of forged unregistered will manufactured on 15.7.1995) on 8.02.2007 and S.D.M. Baxi Ka Talab transfer such file on 14.02. 2007 to Naib Tehsildar , Etauza, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow and on 14.03. 2007 the property of late Kailash Narain Saxena, the husband of petitioner is order to be recorded in name of Ramesh Singh Yadav , who is confine in jail and committed murder of care taker upon the land of petitioner on 22.7.2005.
76. That there is the case of JURISTIC SUCCESSION in favour of deponent and her daughters upon Ancestral Property belonging to the husband of the Deponent. Heirs of the Deceased are entitled to mutation against those who have no LEGAL POSSESSION. That the possession of Rank Trespasser cannot be taken in account.
77. That the possession of the deponent over the land belonging to her husband i.e. the estate of late Kailash Narain Saxena is still there through her power of attorney dated 14-10-1999 and despite the murder committed by Ramesh Singh Yadav on the aforesaid land on 22-7-2005, such criminal, who is known land Mafia in the area, and the F.I.R. in case crime no. 242 of 2005 P.S. Kotwali Dehradun pertaining to the forged will manufactured by him through some imposture at Dehradun is still under investigation. Thus the orders passed on 8-2-2007, 14-2-2007 and 14-3-2007 by the different authorities at Buxi Ka Talab behind the back of the deponent are the orders without jurisdiction and the same are void-ab-initio.
78. That it is prayed that the time bound period may be fixed to the revenue authority to get the mutation of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record over the land belonging to her husband within a short time period and the Revenue Authorities may be directed to decide the case within the time given to such authority. Since the Petitioner can not stay for more than few dates and the frequent visit has been prohibited by the Doctor for conducting the journey from Dehradun to Lucknow and as such the entire proceedings of the mutation case may be decided within a time frame work after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner.
79. That this Hon’ble court has already taken the note of such type of the plight of the living dead farmer who was declared deceased during their lifetime. This Hon’ble court in the public interest litigation Suo- motto on the basis of report published in New-York Times, America took cognizance to such report on behalf on behalf of the “ Association of the dead People Versus State of U.P.” reported in (2000) Vol. I Selected Allahabad Cases page 374 directed the authority to make the detailed inquiry and the individuals were directed to approach the authorities, Police Administration and National Human Right Commission. The true copy of judgement the “ Association of the dead People Versus State of U.P.” reported in (2000) Vol. I Selected Allahabad Cases page 374 is filed as Annexure No.39 to the Representation.
80. That this Hon’ble court has already directed in Chandra Bhan Case (2006) vol.1 S.A.C.206 to the Principal Secretary Revenue to give the empowerment of the Revenue work to such individual, who have the Judicial acumen ship for deciding such cases. The true copy of judgement in the Chandra Bhan Case (2006) vol.1 S.A.C.206 is filed as Annexure No.40 to the Representation.
It is therefore most respectfully submitted that a departmental inquiry be initiated against the erring officials, who remained in connivance of land grabber and the authority may be directed to record the name of applicant on account her being juristic legal successes or , nominee and heir over the agriculture land Late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Superintendent Geophysics, O.N.G.C. Dehradun, R/O 51/5 Haridwar Road Dehradun having his Sankramaniya Bhumidhar over the Khasara Plots no. 621 area 2.630 Hectare, 808 area 0.332 Hectare, 811-Ka area 0.048 Hectare and also over Khasara Plot no. 807 area 4 Bigha 14 Biswa and Khasara Plot no. 832 area 1.372 Hectare. After his death Khasara Plot no. 621. 808 and 811-Ka remained under joint tenure holding of Sri Kailash Narain Saxena and Sri Ram Mohan Saxena, while the Khasara Plot no. 807 was separately recorded in the name of Kailash Narain Saxena, while Khasara Plot no. 832 remain recorded in the name of Sri Ram Mohan Saxena situated at Village Sarora, Mazra Bhudhpurava, Tehsil Baxi- Ka Talab, Lucknow. The authorities may be restrained for deciding the matter pertaining to the aforesaid land till decision may not be taken by your honour in furtherance of the direction contain in the judgement dated 5.11.2007 passed by Hon’ble High Court.
(Applicant)
Smt. Madhuri Saxena, aged about 72 years wife of late Sri Kailash Narain Saxena, Permanent Resident of Village-Sarora Bhudpurwa, Tehsil Baxi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, at present R/O-51/3 Haridwar Road, Dehradun
Copy To- Tehsildar, Baxi Ka Talab For Violation of the Mandate of Section 192-A of Land Revenue Act In passing the Order on 8.2.2007 refered to above
Copy To – Naib Tehsildar , Etauza for intimation regarding passing of an order dated 15-3-2007 on the application seeking setting aside of the exparte order was passed on 30.09.2004 passed in mutation case No.3/6/9/1993, but deciding the case in violation of the case against the mandate of section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Through
YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT,
CHAMBER NO. 139, High Court, ALLAHABAD
R/O H.I.G.-203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem Sarai, Allahabad.
Usurpation of the Compensation of Rs. 22,74,966.28/- of retd. Army Officer by judicial dishonesty
Complaint in respect of functioning of Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan in respect of his functioning as Allahabad High Court Judge, now elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court
To,
My lord The Chief Justice Of India,
Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,
New Delhi
Reference- Usurpation of Compensation amount of Rs. 22, 74, 966.28/= by getting the Sale Deed executed on 25 -11-1968, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department set aside in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act after 34 years of execution of sale deed in favour of its executer by denying the persuasion of remedy till disbursement of such amount in favour of Rank Trespassers in a calculated manner by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan
Subject- Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Brief Facts -Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. U/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala . Paras Ram was in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act, and got his name entered in compensation amounting to Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= . Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application seeking revival of the matter in Defectve First Appeal No. (248) of 2002 . Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Sharada Devi Versus State of Bihar 2003 (3) SCC 128 has laid down that since under section 3 (b) and (c) of Land Acquisition Act, the definition of “person interested” and the “Collector” have been defined.
That a dispute, as to the pre-existing right or interest in the property sought to be acquired, is not a “dispute” capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either u/s 30 of the Act. Thus the order passed u/s 30 on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity, and therefore liable to be declared so. writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
In the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C. in Defective First Appeal No. (248) of 2002.,as the opposition was made by the counsel Senior Advocate of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal is converted in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate , being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.
Hon’ble, the my lord the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
That Major Jasbinder Singh Bala is retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer. He is now running at the age of about 82 years with the uncertainty regarding his life due to many ailments and heart trouble. His Excellency the President of India Sri Rajendra Prasad on 4.2.1953 appreciated Major Jasbinder Singh Bala for his dedicated services in Active Army regarding his sincerity, courage and conduct. However, after fighting for the nation for about 25 years, he retired prematurely. That Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. The Registered sale deed, executed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala by Gajraj s/o Raghubir, R/o village-prahladgarhi, pargana Loni ,Tehsil & District- Ghaziabad was in respect of land of khasara no. 445- Area 2 Bigha 3 Biswa and khasara no 639- Area 5 Bigha in khata no.26 in1375 Fasli, which was exclusively recorded in the name of Gajraj, wherein it was particularly mentioned, that there is no co-sharer and claimant over the land in dispute. Thus it was not open for Gajraj to repudiate the aforesaid undertaking mention in the sale deed. That Gajraj sold another land to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 08/02/1967 having Khasara No 197 comprising of 2 Beeghas and 11 Bishwa situated at prahaladgari and since the aforesaid land got lesser compensation as such the objection in respect of selling the said land unauthorisely by Gajraj was not raised by Paras Ram and Gajraj. That it has been submitted that a collusive suit bearing case no.5 of 1970 was filed by Paras Ram against Gajraj alleging therein that Paras Ram was posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh ,while he was actualy born from Chaman Kali and Munshi ‘( not his father)and of such he is not entitled for half share in the said property. However, by order dated 12/5/1971 in the proceedings U/S 229-H/ 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, it was directed that except by the exclusion of such plot, in which the registered sale deeds have been executed by Gajraj, Paras Ram is entitled to half of the share in the aforesaid plots.
That Paras Ram filed this collusive suit under section 229-B and209 U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act Bearing case No 5 of 1970 without impleading Major Jasbinder Singh Bala , in which, the claim set up by him that he was allegedly posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh, the father of Gaj Raj Singh and thus was having half share in all the land belonging to Gaj Raj and the land sold by Gaj Raj to the Petitioner and Other Persons were excluded in his share.
That Gaj Raj has sold other lands also through registered sale deed duly executed on 1/12/1966 and on 8/2/1967 in favour of petitioner. The name of the petitioner remained mentioned in these sale deeds, but Paras Ram did not raise any dispute in pursuance of these sale deeds regarding his entitlement of his share. The dispute was raised only in regard to sale deed executed on 25/11/1968, in which the compensation assessed, while making an award of rupees 22,74,966/-and 28 paisa.
That thus u/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala .
That subject, to the aforesaid objection raised at the very onset, and making the denial to rights conferred with Gaj Raj and Paras Ram on the basis of an exparte collusive suit, for getting the name of Paras Ram illegally in the award, the matter was contested before the court below.
That in the judgement dated 12. 5. 1971, it is mentioned especially for the purposes of demonstrating the findings on the issue no. 3, in which it is clearly mentioned that since the plots regarding which the sale deed has been executed, have been excluded, this issue need not be discussed.
That since the name of other person Ram kishan was already deleted by the order dated 27.4.1971, as such the aforesaid judgement dated 12.5.1971 was confined only to the extent of such plots in which the sale deed were not executed in favour of different parties namely Ram Kishan . Major Jasbinder Singh Bala and Kanshi Ram, as referred in the subsequent judgement.
That this was on account of these facts, that Additional Commissioner has rejected the Revision by judgement dated 2/6/1976 which was filed challenging the order passed by Additional S. D. O. Ghaziabad on 12/9/1975 rejecting the application of Paras Ram for Amaldaramad.
That despite the rejection of claim up to the stage of Additional Commissioner, the Paras Ram managed to manipulate for circumventing the effect of finality of the order passed by Additional Commissioner, moved an application before Asst. S. D. O. in 1981 with a prayer to record his name to Amaldaramad to the extent of held of its share. In the aforesaid application he got the plot no. 445 and 639 included, which was belonging to the petitioner and finality has been arrived in respect of these plots by the final judgement dated 2/6/1976 Revisional court by exclusion of these plots for mutation in favour of Paras Ram.
That these Persons even after being lost Upto the stage of Revision No.144 of 1975-76 on 2/6/1976 in the mutation proceedings, Paras Ram got his name included to the half portion of share land by an fraudulent, misconceived , void–ab-initio and ex-parte order dated 18/12/1981 passed by the Asst. S. D. O. in respect of these plots belonging to the petitioner in the sheer abuse of the process of the Revenue courts. The name of Paras Ram, on the basis of fraudulent aforesaid entry made in Revenue Record, appeared in the impugned award to half of the total amount which was legally required to be paid to the petitioner namely Major Jasbinder Singh Bala in land acquisition proceedings and as such the challenge was made before the S.L.A.O and also in the court below.
That this matter was finalized up to the stage of Additional Commissioner Meerut Division in revision no. 144/ 1975-1976 by order dated 26/1976 wherein it was held that land pertaining to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala shall remain excluded in pursuance of the order obtained exparte on 12/5/1971 by Paras Ram in collusion with Gajraj. The said order dated 2/6/1976 became final in the mutation proceedings. However, on 10/12/1981 , Paras Ram got his name recorded again in revenue records along with the name of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala to the extent of half of share when the plots no. 445 and 629 are 7.3 Bighas were acquired under Land Acquisition proceedings.
That in the meantime the land was acquired by the state Govt. and as such a suit was filed by Gajraj U/S 229 B of U. P. L. A. Z. R. Act seeking the declaration to the extent of further half of share of remaining land apart from share of Paras Ram alleged to have already been decided between the parties. The aforesaid proceedings are still pending before A. S. D. O. Gaziabad.
That it is well proposition of Law that recording of name in the mutation proceedings has not conferred any title upon recorded tenure holder. It has been held inre, Nirman Singh versus Rudra Pratap Singh A. I. R. 1926 Privy Council page 100, Nageshwar Bux Singh versus H. Ganesha A. I. R. 1920 Privy Council page 46, Durga Prasad versus Ghanshayam Das A. I. R. 1948 Privy Council page 210, Ramanna versus Samtha Murthi A. I. R. 1961 page 361, Mohindar Singh versus State of Punjab A. I. R. 1977 S. C. page 2012, Vatti Cherukuru Village Panchayat versus Noori Venkata Rama Dixithule 1991 A. I. R. S. C. W. page 1303 and in Naval Shankar Ishwar Dawe versus State of Gujrat A. I. R. 1994 S. C. page 1496 that mutation of name in revenue record are not evidence of title. Thus no rights have been accrued to Paras Ram/ petitioner for realisation of amount stated in the writ petition no 23591 of 1992 in the tune of Rs. 11,37,483.14 Paisa in the said proceedings.
That apart from this that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was filed by Paras Ram without impleading the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition . Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) as the fraud neither deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). Fraud avoids all the judicial acts and order obtain by fraud is a nullity and thereby rendering the entire action void. AIR 1994 SC 853 –S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath J T 1996(7) 135- Indian Bank Vs. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 512 –Bank of India Vs. Vijay Transport and others.
That the proceedings in L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram have been stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, while the proceedings of L. A. R. no.131 of 1996 U/S 18,30 filed by Gajraj have also been stayed in writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, while the present reference U/S 30 which was not a declaratory suit has been decided by the Court below on 29/4/2002. There may not be two parallel proceedings running simultaneously between the parties in the same court in which one may remain suspended and other may be decided in a premeditated manner despite the bar created under the statue. Thus the order and judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree passed therein are liable to be set aside.
That Paras Ram and Gajraj have misrepresented themselves to be illiterate person, while both of them are very clever and shrood persons , who got the collusive suit filed and decided U/S 229B/ 209 of U. P. S. A. L. R. Act behind the back of petitioner on 12/5/1971 and despite the fact that Paras Ram is in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act.
That this Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application.
That on the one hand all these things has been done, while on the other hand Paras Ram and Gajraj entered into compromise with Ram Kishan, the other person, who has purchased the land prior to judgement passed on 12/5/1971 in which the name of Ram Kishan was deleted by order dated 27/4/1971. Gajraj got the compromises given effect by permitting Ram Kishan to realise the entire compensation.
That in this manner the action of respondents namely Paras Ram and Gajraj is calculated abuse of process by making a mockery to the entire administration of justice through their reprehensible conduct by exercising their pernicious influence beyond the parties to action i.e. to the appellant Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who is an old person running at the age of about 80 years after completing his sincere and dedicated services for maintaining the security and integrity of nation for 25 years in Army and as such a daring raid may not by allowed to be perpetuated by invaders of the due administration of justice.
That the conduct of Paras Ram is so reprehensible that by making the protest of having a misrepresented the said order dated 23/9/1996 in the Execution case no. 8 of 1997 as he moved an application on 29/11/1996. On the basis of said application he sought for having realisation of money in the tune of Rupees 11,33,983.40 Paisa. It was only on the basis of an application filed on behalf of State Govt. when such proceedings could have been stopped and thereafter a letter was issued on 27/10/1997 addressed to IIIrd Additional District Judge that against such a frivolous execution proceedings no. 8 of 1997 Paras Ram should be penalized by Rs. 50,000/-
That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was to the exclusion of the proceedings decided on 29/4/2002 by the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, 19462 of 1999 and 19555 of 1999 are cognizable by the learned single judge, but no special appeal is maintainable arising out of the order in the said proceedings, while the first appeal no. (248) of 2002 is cognizable by the Division Bench as the valuation of said appeal is 22,74,966.28 Paise.
That on one hand the writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 was presented on 15/7/1992, while simultaneously the parallel proceedings in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act was initiated in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. However, simultaneously other collateral proceedings having L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj were initiated before the Additional District Judge U/S 18 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but the said proceedings U/S 18 of Land Acquisition Act were stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 ( Paras Ram vs II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and others) and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 (Gajraj vs. II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad & Others)on 12/5/1999. That even in the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was filed by Paras Ram in respect of order dated 7/4/1999 in which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the Paras Ram to issue notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who has recorded his appearance in the aforesaid case in pursuance of order passed on 12/5/1999 in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999.
That on one hand the petitioner is persuading the present remedy for realisation of alleged compensation in which the writ petition was finally dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu and without having any order being obtained on the review application, the order dated 10/4/2002 has been obtained by Paras Ram behind the back of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala. The aforesaid order passed by this Hon’ble Court is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court as justice may be done with the rights of bonfide title owner and actual receipient of the amount of compensation in the tune of Rs. 22,74, 966.28 Paisa. That although the collateral proceedings initiated in different forum are prohibited to run simultaneously in view of restriction imposed under section 10 of C. P. C. read with principle of constructive res judicata. acquiescence and estoppel.
That at the very outset, it is most humbly submitted that the order passed on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. Gaziabad in L.A.R No. 421 of 1992, U/S 30 of land Acquisition Act has been decided by impugned order and judgement beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the reference made regarding apportionment of the amount of compensation under the aforesaid provision. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Sharada Devi Versus State of Bihar 2003 (3) SCC 128 has laid down that since under section 3 (b) and (c) of Land Acquisition Act, the definition of “person interested” and the “Collector” have been defined.
That a dispute, as to the pre-existing right or interest in the property sought to be acquired, is not a “dispute” capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either u/s 30 of the Act. Thus the order passed u/s 30 on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity, and therefore liable to be declared so.
That, the matter of apportionment does not fail within ambit of “Dispute” under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but it appears that the learned A. D. J. has passed the judgement and order dated 29/4/2002 in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 wholly without jurisdiction in the aforesaid matter while deciding the case U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act as that of a declaratory suit, which is not permissible within eyes of law.
That u/s 12 (1) and section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, the finality of the award is attributed between the “persons interested”. The definition of “persons interested” speaks of or interest in the compensation to be made. Thus invoking section 30 of land Acquisition Act, to the pre-existing right on the land and entitlement of compensation, may only be left upon to be adjudicated by any independent proceedings.
That the said order has been passed in derogation to present proceedings initiated by way of filing the present writ petition and the same is not illegal and void, but on account of making as abuse of process through reprehensible conduct of petitioner, the same are also contemptuous in the light of the case of Advocate General Bihar vs M/S Madhya Pradesh Khair Industry 1981 (3) S. C. C. 311.
That the S. L. A. O. passed an order and Award on 19/9/1990 illegally, stating therein that although the compensation to the extent of half of the award as per the name being recorded in the revenue record in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala is payable, but the same in the tune of Rs. 11,33,983.40 Paisa is still required for disbursement, but the court below has further exceeded the power, propriety and jurisdiction in passing the impugned order depriving the petitioner from total amount of compensation beyond the scope of the reference made U/S 30 of land acquisition Act. That in the revenue records the name of Jasbinder Singh Bala was recorded from the dated of execution of Registered sale deed, which was still continuing.
That ultimately the writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was dismissed on 23/9/1996. Surprisingly without giving any notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala in furtherance of the alleged restoration application in writ petition No. 23591 of 1992, Paras Ram got an order ex party behind the back of the petitioner for disbursement of an amount of Rupees 11,37,483.14 Paisa . This an abuse of the process in calculated manners , which is a criminal contempt .Advocate General, Bihar Vs. M/S Kher Industries 1980 (3) SCC 311. On 29.4.2002, in the Impugn order in LAR NO.421 of 1992 has been passed by the II nd ADJ Ghaziabad under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the registered sale deed dated 25.11.1968 executed about 34 years back by Gaj Raj has been set aside while on the basis of frivolous entry recorded by order dated 18. 12. 1981 fraudulently from Assistant SDM even after dismissal of the revision by Additional SDO and Additional Commissioner on 12.9. 1975 and 2.6.1976 respectively which is void and ab initio .
That on one hand, the present proceedings U/S 30 are dealt with, while simultaneously the proceedings U/S 18 ,30 of Land Acquisition Act bearing L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj are pending in the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid proceedings Jasbinder Singh Bala moved an application for impleading him as the party, which was allowed by order dated 8/4/1999.
That feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 were filed in which notices were issued to the deponent.
That surprisingly enough to state that although a writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 has been filed for quashing the order dated 7/4/1999 passed by the Court below, in which in compliance of order of District Judge to decide the case expeditiously and the issues was directed to decide at one time of both the parties. It is submitted that Paras Ram has also sought for quashing the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 which has been decided by the judgement dated 29/4/2002 in spite the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999.
That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 filed by Paras Ram, wherein he has sought for setting aside the proceedings of Reference case no. 421 of 1992 on the issue of Res judicata and also sought for staying the further proceedings of reference no. 421 of 1992 pending before IInd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and as such since there was no occasion to proceed further in deciding the matter on 29/4/2002 during pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and as such the judgement and decree dated 29/4/2002 and 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside as the said proceedings has been decided in derogation to the proceedings in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 filed by Paras Ram.
That on 9.5.2002, the Petitioner filed the review application for reviewing the order dated 29.4.2002 , which has been dismiassed on 3.2.2003 by ( Smt. Sadhana Choudhary) the 2nd ADJ herself .
That thereafter the appellant moved an application before the District Judge, Ghaziabad on 11.7.2002 seeking transfer of review application through transfer application no. 397 of 2002 and when the District Judge rejected the said application on 17-8-2002, the prayer were incorporated in relations thereof in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That ultimately Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary then posted as IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad rejected the review application on 3-2-2003 by the detail order, wherein the jurisdictional error committed in passing the order dated 29-4-2002 was pointed out by the counsel for the appellant.
That the order passed in review application no. 31 of 2002 on 3-2-2003 was also challenged by filing an amendment application on 12-3-2003 bearing amendment application no…… of 2003 in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002. However, the counter affidavit was called upon on the aforesaid amendment application by an order dated 29-12-2003, but the said amendment application remained pending till the decision of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 decided on 17.11.2005 on the ground of its maintainability.
On 12.3.2003 the amendment Application challenging the order dated 3.2.2003 rejecting the review Application No.31 of 02 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad is filed. That in this manner, there has been multiplicity of the proceedings taken place upto this stage by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 ( Paras Ram vs. State of U.P ), writ petition no. 19462 of 1996 ( Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P.), writ petition No. 19555 of 1996 ( Gajraj vs. State of U.P.) and writ petition no. 19572 of 1996 ( Paras Ram versus State of U.P.) and also the order dated 10-4-2002, which were clearly demonstrative of the facts that against an Army Personnel, who has sacrificed his life for providing security to the citizens against external aggression is jeopardising his right not on account of only the manipulated and frivolous proceeding instituted by Paras Ram and Gajraj, but also on account of orders passed and obtained by this persons from this Hon’ble Court.
That according to the settled proposition of law advanced by the Apex Court, the latest decision on the point of making / forwarding the reference by S.L.A.O to the court of District judge/ Additional District Judge, the individual should be the ‘ PERSON INTERESTED’ as defined under section 9 (3) of L.A. Act (Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta 2005 (12) SCC Page 1 and a stranger to the award namely Gajraj . who sold his land on 25.11.1968 through Registered Sale Deed is not entitled to claim his entitlement for compensation in the present reference . The present reference is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of A.I.R. 1965 S.C. Page 304 has clearly held that the pre-existing right of the person whose name does not find place in the award may not get entitlement for moving the reference either u/s 18 or 30 of the L.A. Act. That in case of Mehar Rusi Dalal Vs. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 362 / A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3491, it has been held that the person who is not entitled to make the reference u/s 18, the said person was not interested to get the decision for realisation of award u/s 30 regarding his alleged apportionment of the share. Thus the judgment dated 29.4.2002 is de hors to the provisions and non est. , which has no evidencery value against the right of the objector to realize the entire compensation.That the Hon’ble Supreme court has further held in case of Ahad Bross vs. State of M.P. 2005 ( 1 )SCC page 545 that a person who is not the’ person interested” may not agitate any claim u/s 18 of the L.A. Act. Thus the present reference filed by Gajraj is liable to be rejected.
That the objector had already moved to the S.L.A.O. for referring the reference u/s 18 on 6/7 April, 1989 to the District Judge Ghaziabad, but inspite the acceptance of the aforesaid application by the rival group of the claimants, the same has not been independently registered as the reference. Thus apart from being impleaded as the respondent, the objector was having his independent right to get the realisation of award of Rs. 22.74.966.28 Paise from the Court of I1nd Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad. The order and judgment passed on 29.4.2002 followed with a decree dated 4.5.2002 is a nullity and non est for having evidence value to curtail the right of the objector for realisation of compensation. The review application after due amendment in the prayer of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 filed by the objector is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court.
That in this manner the claim of the objector is squarely covered within the purview of maintainability of application of award independently as well as by virtue of being impleaded in the present reference by order dated 7.4.1999 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High court on 10.11.2005 rejecting the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 filed by Gajraj.
That this stage on 29-4-2002 the L.A.R. No. 421 of 1992 was decided as de hors to the said provisions of apportionment of the compensation between the ‘INTERESTED PERSON’, which could not have the jurisdiction entail to decide it as a “DISPUTE” nor the adjudication of “ PRE-EXISTENT RIGHT ”, if any, could have been taken place by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District judge, Ghaziabad declaring Paras Ram and Gajraj, being entitled to get the compensation of 50 – 50 percent calculated as Rs. 22,74,966.28 Paise i.e. each were entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.11,37,483.14 Paise.
That surprisingly the decree was also prepared of said amount on 4-5-2002 against which the appellant fled review application on 9-5-2002 seeking review of the order dated 29-4-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That on 9-5-2002 the appellant filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble court bearing writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 with the following prayers :-
1) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursement of amount awarded in pursuance of judgement dated 29-4-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, during the pendency of Reference 18 of the Act between the parties.
2) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declaration of the amount of Rs.22,966.28 paise on the basis of impugned judgement dated 29-4-2002 in favour of respondent no. 4 and 5 in the proceedings u/s 30 decided like a declaratory suit by setting aside the registered sale deed executed on 25-11-1968 as unconstitutional and void.
3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-8-2002 passed by respondent mo.6 rejecting the transfer application no, 397 of 2002,
4) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus in the alternative that proceedings of review application no. 31 of 2002 may kindly be directed to be decided by some other Addl. District judge in view of the fact that matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for initiating an enquiry and for directing the same to be decided by the Court nominated by District Judge, Ghaziabad.
5) To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”
That in the meantime, since the memo of appeal was also prepared in July, 2002 for which the appellant was not sure as to whether the Ad-volerum court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise is required to be paid or not ?, after filing the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 ( Major Jasbinder Singh Bala Vs. II Addl. District Judge Ghaziabad & others), it was deemed proper to filed the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That the facts regarding preparation of the First Appeal was clearly mention in the Paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition, which states the clear picture emerged at the time of filing the writ petition on 5-9-2002 and regarding the preparation of memo of appeal stating Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise reported as Ad-volerum court fees required to be paid. Thus filing of writ petition and filing of defective First Appeal being considered by taking all such back grounds into mind, it is submitted that the appellant has availed both the remedies with the different prayers, on which the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 and the defective First Appeal was filed on 5-9-2002. The paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is reproduced as under :-
“ 42. That the Appellant is also submitted that there is no remedy for the Appellant to challenge the order and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 respectively passed by IInd additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in L.A.R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of land acquisition Act. There is proceedings of section 54 of Land acquisition Act to file the First Appeal in respect of cases decided u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein a decree could have been passed after determination of amount in respect of entitlement of different claimants. In case the Appellant pursue the remedy of filing the appeal, he is required to deposits Rs.1.71.032.50 Paise as the Court fees for the said appeal as the courts fees ad-volerum is required to be paid. Thus the aforesaid appeal is neither amenable for the Appellant to have been filed by depositing such a huge amount for conferring his right specially under the circumstances when the respondents has himself proceeded to file the writ petition no. 23591 of 192, it has been held in Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234 that the award given by land Acquisition Officer is not a decree within meaning of section 2 (2) of C.P.C. and as such, the same is not tenable for execution by Civil court and thus the writ petition is amenable for realization of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.”
That an application was filed by the appellant under Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice are reproduced as under :-
“ In his application dated 4th November 2003 filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38064 / 2002, Sri Y.K. Saxena, Advocate, counsel for Appellant has made a prayer that the said writ petition be decided along with writ petition no. 23591/1992, Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P. and other, writ petition no. 19572/1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and others, writ petition no. 19462 /1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, writ petition no. ------ Gajraj Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ( the number of the writ petition has not been mentioned in the prayer but it appears that writ petition Number should be 19555/1999) and First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
By order dated 09-09-2002, writ petition nos. 19462/1999 and 19555/1999 have been connected with this writ petition ( W.P. No. 38064/2002 )
In the present writ petition (No. 38064/2002) the Appellant has prayed for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursing the amount awarded in pursuance of judgment passed in L.A.R. 421/1992 (with respect to land Khasra No. 45 area 2-3-0 and Khasra No. 639, area 5-0-0), situated at Prahlad Garhi, Loni, Ghaziabad.
In writ petition no. 23591/2002 the Appellant has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent to make payment of compensation in respect of the same land (Para No. 1 of this writ petition).
In writ petition No, 19572/1999, the Appellant has sought a relief of certiorari quashing order dated 07-0 –1999 rejecting the application of the Appellant to decide the point of res judicata preliminarily, and also seeking mandamus to decide the same. A prayer for stay of the proceedings of the said case has also been made. The case mentioned in the said petition is also in respect of the land ( para no. 4 of the petition).
In First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 the award of compensation made in respect of the acquisition of the aforesaid land has been challenged.
In view of the aforesaid facts, all the above cases relates to the same subject matter.
Report submitted for kind perusal.”
“” The matters are assigned to the bench presided over by Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.””
Sd. Hon’ble The chief Justice Dated 17-11-2003
That in the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C., the opposition was made by the counsel of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant as the appellant has already requested to his counsel, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That the impleadment application was allowed by this Hon’ble Court on the same date having the impleadment of state of U.P. through Secretary Avas, Secretariat, Lucknow and District Magistrate/ Collector Ghaziabad as parties to array of respondents being respondent no. 7 and 8 respectively, which was also incorporated on 18.12.2003 by the counsel for the appellant, The order allowing the impleadment application and inviting counter affidavit on two amendment applications ( one for seeking quashing of order dated 3-2-2003 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad for which amendment application was filed on 12-3-2003 and another amendment having writ of certiorari for setting aside the judgement dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ).
That the said orders were passed in view of facts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in number of cases including in case of Dr. Grant case (Supra ), Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad has not only committed an error by deciding the reference of section 30 of L. A. Act pertaining to apportionment like that of civil suit, but also decided the pre-existing right therein. The orders passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad on 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 are non est and nullity, which can appropriately be challenged by incorporating additional prayer and thus the burden of this Hon’ble court will be lightened for deciding the fact as to whether ad-volerum court fees is at all may be required to be paid and as to whether the appellant is an indigent person or not ?. Thus in this back ground coupled with incapability of appellant to pay the aforesaid court fees, the defective First Appeal was withdrawn by keeping into mind that same is not amenable against a judgment regarding apportionment of compensation claim decided under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
That in this context, it is further submitted that as the appeal lies only against a judgement passed in reference under section 18 of L. A. Act i.e. under section 54 of L. A. Act and when the provisions of appeal are itself in existence in the aforesaid special enactment created by the Parliament, there may not be the appeal required to be filed under section 96 against the order and decree passed under section 30 of L. A. Act by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad having the adjudication of the said proceedings as that of civil suit and that too regarding pre-existing right fabricated on account of wrong mutation entry obtained by Paras Ram by committing fraud upon the statute and also to the proceedings of this Hon’ble Court, which were simultaneously conducted by them ( Paras Ram and Gajraj ) on the basis of which the bench presided over by DR. B.S. Chauhan was nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Thus withdrawal of defective first appeal may not construed as that of forfeiture of rights of appellant for ever as he has acted on the basis of legal advise taken from different lawyers of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the lawyers of this Hon’ble Court and thus without moving any application the defective first appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by the nominated bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
That ultimately on 10-11-2005, when the arguments were advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram then all the 5 writ petitions were taken together and at that time an objection was raised that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 us barred by constructive Res judicata on account of dismissal of defective first appeal no. (248) of 2002 filed in respect of similar relief. The counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram and Gajraj also raised the allegation of forum hunting. It is submitted that when the counsel for the appellant made counter allegations against Paras Ram and Gajraj regarding forum hunting by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, then all such writ petitions were sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 itself.
That similarly the writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 were also sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 as the allegation of forum hunting raised against the rank usurpers Paras Ram and Gajraj may not be leveled against them and as such they sought for withdrawal of all 4 writ petitions and the matter was confined only to writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 by forgiving all such back grounds remained there at the time of filing the aforesaid writ petition and connecting all such 5 writ petitions and defective appeal by an order dated 17-11-2003.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
That against the dismissal of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the appellant filed the Special Leave to Appeal no. 2946 of 2006 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been dismissed simplicitor in limine without permitting the appellant to get it converted in Civil Appeal, may not bar the filing of the present Review application before this Hon’ble Court.
That since this Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
That the appellant is an Ex-Army personnel and on account of incapability of the appellant to approach this Hon’ble Court in the different forum of redressal of grievances and thus remained acting on the basis of advise given by the many prominent counsel of Hon’ble Supreme Court and only thereafter has instructed his counsel to withdraw the defective first appeal on 17-11-2003 as the appellant remained under the impression that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and three other writ petitions filed in the years 1999 are maintainable, while the appeal does not lies under section 54 and section 96 may not be attracted in the present case. That it is, however, in fact and circumstances of case that this Hon’ble Court has held on 17-11-2005 that writ petition no. 38064 0f 2002 is not maintainable and the Special Leave to Appeal filed against the said judgment has been dismissed summarily. The appellant is seeking recall of order dated 17-12-2003 that the appellant is a old person running at the age of 83 years and suffering from malign cancer. He has got the impairment of speech and is unable to walk like that of ordinary person. He has given a youth time for protecting integrity of our nation till his retirement after 1965 war and thus the appellant is tendering his unqualified apology for permitting him to withdraw his defective appeal by giving said instruction to his counsel under the wrong legal advise of prominent counsel practicing in Hon’ble Supreme Court. That under these circumstances, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the order dated 17-11-2003 may kindly be recalled / reviewed in the light of aforesaid circumstances of case. The defective appeal may be restored to its original number, as justice may be done with the rights of the appellant.
Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate, being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.
Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, S/o Sri Bachan Singh Bala,R/o- Bala Farm, Sector –9 Vaishali , Ghaziabad
To,
My lord The Chief Justice Of India,
Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,
New Delhi
Reference- Usurpation of Compensation amount of Rs. 22, 74, 966.28/= by getting the Sale Deed executed on 25 -11-1968, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department set aside in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act after 34 years of execution of sale deed in favour of its executer by denying the persuasion of remedy till disbursement of such amount in favour of Rank Trespassers in a calculated manner by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan
Subject- Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Brief Facts -Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. U/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala . Paras Ram was in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act, and got his name entered in compensation amounting to Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= . Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application seeking revival of the matter in Defectve First Appeal No. (248) of 2002 . Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Sharada Devi Versus State of Bihar 2003 (3) SCC 128 has laid down that since under section 3 (b) and (c) of Land Acquisition Act, the definition of “person interested” and the “Collector” have been defined.
That a dispute, as to the pre-existing right or interest in the property sought to be acquired, is not a “dispute” capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either u/s 30 of the Act. Thus the order passed u/s 30 on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity, and therefore liable to be declared so. writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
In the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C. in Defective First Appeal No. (248) of 2002.,as the opposition was made by the counsel Senior Advocate of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal is converted in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate , being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.
Hon’ble, the my lord the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
That Major Jasbinder Singh Bala is retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer. He is now running at the age of about 82 years with the uncertainty regarding his life due to many ailments and heart trouble. His Excellency the President of India Sri Rajendra Prasad on 4.2.1953 appreciated Major Jasbinder Singh Bala for his dedicated services in Active Army regarding his sincerity, courage and conduct. However, after fighting for the nation for about 25 years, he retired prematurely. That Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. The Registered sale deed, executed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala by Gajraj s/o Raghubir, R/o village-prahladgarhi, pargana Loni ,Tehsil & District- Ghaziabad was in respect of land of khasara no. 445- Area 2 Bigha 3 Biswa and khasara no 639- Area 5 Bigha in khata no.26 in1375 Fasli, which was exclusively recorded in the name of Gajraj, wherein it was particularly mentioned, that there is no co-sharer and claimant over the land in dispute. Thus it was not open for Gajraj to repudiate the aforesaid undertaking mention in the sale deed. That Gajraj sold another land to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 08/02/1967 having Khasara No 197 comprising of 2 Beeghas and 11 Bishwa situated at prahaladgari and since the aforesaid land got lesser compensation as such the objection in respect of selling the said land unauthorisely by Gajraj was not raised by Paras Ram and Gajraj. That it has been submitted that a collusive suit bearing case no.5 of 1970 was filed by Paras Ram against Gajraj alleging therein that Paras Ram was posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh ,while he was actualy born from Chaman Kali and Munshi ‘( not his father)and of such he is not entitled for half share in the said property. However, by order dated 12/5/1971 in the proceedings U/S 229-H/ 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, it was directed that except by the exclusion of such plot, in which the registered sale deeds have been executed by Gajraj, Paras Ram is entitled to half of the share in the aforesaid plots.
That Paras Ram filed this collusive suit under section 229-B and209 U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act Bearing case No 5 of 1970 without impleading Major Jasbinder Singh Bala , in which, the claim set up by him that he was allegedly posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh, the father of Gaj Raj Singh and thus was having half share in all the land belonging to Gaj Raj and the land sold by Gaj Raj to the Petitioner and Other Persons were excluded in his share.
That Gaj Raj has sold other lands also through registered sale deed duly executed on 1/12/1966 and on 8/2/1967 in favour of petitioner. The name of the petitioner remained mentioned in these sale deeds, but Paras Ram did not raise any dispute in pursuance of these sale deeds regarding his entitlement of his share. The dispute was raised only in regard to sale deed executed on 25/11/1968, in which the compensation assessed, while making an award of rupees 22,74,966/-and 28 paisa.
That thus u/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala .
That subject, to the aforesaid objection raised at the very onset, and making the denial to rights conferred with Gaj Raj and Paras Ram on the basis of an exparte collusive suit, for getting the name of Paras Ram illegally in the award, the matter was contested before the court below.
That in the judgement dated 12. 5. 1971, it is mentioned especially for the purposes of demonstrating the findings on the issue no. 3, in which it is clearly mentioned that since the plots regarding which the sale deed has been executed, have been excluded, this issue need not be discussed.
That since the name of other person Ram kishan was already deleted by the order dated 27.4.1971, as such the aforesaid judgement dated 12.5.1971 was confined only to the extent of such plots in which the sale deed were not executed in favour of different parties namely Ram Kishan . Major Jasbinder Singh Bala and Kanshi Ram, as referred in the subsequent judgement.
That this was on account of these facts, that Additional Commissioner has rejected the Revision by judgement dated 2/6/1976 which was filed challenging the order passed by Additional S. D. O. Ghaziabad on 12/9/1975 rejecting the application of Paras Ram for Amaldaramad.
That despite the rejection of claim up to the stage of Additional Commissioner, the Paras Ram managed to manipulate for circumventing the effect of finality of the order passed by Additional Commissioner, moved an application before Asst. S. D. O. in 1981 with a prayer to record his name to Amaldaramad to the extent of held of its share. In the aforesaid application he got the plot no. 445 and 639 included, which was belonging to the petitioner and finality has been arrived in respect of these plots by the final judgement dated 2/6/1976 Revisional court by exclusion of these plots for mutation in favour of Paras Ram.
That these Persons even after being lost Upto the stage of Revision No.144 of 1975-76 on 2/6/1976 in the mutation proceedings, Paras Ram got his name included to the half portion of share land by an fraudulent, misconceived , void–ab-initio and ex-parte order dated 18/12/1981 passed by the Asst. S. D. O. in respect of these plots belonging to the petitioner in the sheer abuse of the process of the Revenue courts. The name of Paras Ram, on the basis of fraudulent aforesaid entry made in Revenue Record, appeared in the impugned award to half of the total amount which was legally required to be paid to the petitioner namely Major Jasbinder Singh Bala in land acquisition proceedings and as such the challenge was made before the S.L.A.O and also in the court below.
That this matter was finalized up to the stage of Additional Commissioner Meerut Division in revision no. 144/ 1975-1976 by order dated 26/1976 wherein it was held that land pertaining to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala shall remain excluded in pursuance of the order obtained exparte on 12/5/1971 by Paras Ram in collusion with Gajraj. The said order dated 2/6/1976 became final in the mutation proceedings. However, on 10/12/1981 , Paras Ram got his name recorded again in revenue records along with the name of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala to the extent of half of share when the plots no. 445 and 629 are 7.3 Bighas were acquired under Land Acquisition proceedings.
That in the meantime the land was acquired by the state Govt. and as such a suit was filed by Gajraj U/S 229 B of U. P. L. A. Z. R. Act seeking the declaration to the extent of further half of share of remaining land apart from share of Paras Ram alleged to have already been decided between the parties. The aforesaid proceedings are still pending before A. S. D. O. Gaziabad.
That it is well proposition of Law that recording of name in the mutation proceedings has not conferred any title upon recorded tenure holder. It has been held inre, Nirman Singh versus Rudra Pratap Singh A. I. R. 1926 Privy Council page 100, Nageshwar Bux Singh versus H. Ganesha A. I. R. 1920 Privy Council page 46, Durga Prasad versus Ghanshayam Das A. I. R. 1948 Privy Council page 210, Ramanna versus Samtha Murthi A. I. R. 1961 page 361, Mohindar Singh versus State of Punjab A. I. R. 1977 S. C. page 2012, Vatti Cherukuru Village Panchayat versus Noori Venkata Rama Dixithule 1991 A. I. R. S. C. W. page 1303 and in Naval Shankar Ishwar Dawe versus State of Gujrat A. I. R. 1994 S. C. page 1496 that mutation of name in revenue record are not evidence of title. Thus no rights have been accrued to Paras Ram/ petitioner for realisation of amount stated in the writ petition no 23591 of 1992 in the tune of Rs. 11,37,483.14 Paisa in the said proceedings.
That apart from this that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was filed by Paras Ram without impleading the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition . Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) as the fraud neither deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). Fraud avoids all the judicial acts and order obtain by fraud is a nullity and thereby rendering the entire action void. AIR 1994 SC 853 –S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath J T 1996(7) 135- Indian Bank Vs. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 512 –Bank of India Vs. Vijay Transport and others.
That the proceedings in L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram have been stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, while the proceedings of L. A. R. no.131 of 1996 U/S 18,30 filed by Gajraj have also been stayed in writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, while the present reference U/S 30 which was not a declaratory suit has been decided by the Court below on 29/4/2002. There may not be two parallel proceedings running simultaneously between the parties in the same court in which one may remain suspended and other may be decided in a premeditated manner despite the bar created under the statue. Thus the order and judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree passed therein are liable to be set aside.
That Paras Ram and Gajraj have misrepresented themselves to be illiterate person, while both of them are very clever and shrood persons , who got the collusive suit filed and decided U/S 229B/ 209 of U. P. S. A. L. R. Act behind the back of petitioner on 12/5/1971 and despite the fact that Paras Ram is in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act.
That this Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application.
That on the one hand all these things has been done, while on the other hand Paras Ram and Gajraj entered into compromise with Ram Kishan, the other person, who has purchased the land prior to judgement passed on 12/5/1971 in which the name of Ram Kishan was deleted by order dated 27/4/1971. Gajraj got the compromises given effect by permitting Ram Kishan to realise the entire compensation.
That in this manner the action of respondents namely Paras Ram and Gajraj is calculated abuse of process by making a mockery to the entire administration of justice through their reprehensible conduct by exercising their pernicious influence beyond the parties to action i.e. to the appellant Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who is an old person running at the age of about 80 years after completing his sincere and dedicated services for maintaining the security and integrity of nation for 25 years in Army and as such a daring raid may not by allowed to be perpetuated by invaders of the due administration of justice.
That the conduct of Paras Ram is so reprehensible that by making the protest of having a misrepresented the said order dated 23/9/1996 in the Execution case no. 8 of 1997 as he moved an application on 29/11/1996. On the basis of said application he sought for having realisation of money in the tune of Rupees 11,33,983.40 Paisa. It was only on the basis of an application filed on behalf of State Govt. when such proceedings could have been stopped and thereafter a letter was issued on 27/10/1997 addressed to IIIrd Additional District Judge that against such a frivolous execution proceedings no. 8 of 1997 Paras Ram should be penalized by Rs. 50,000/-
That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was to the exclusion of the proceedings decided on 29/4/2002 by the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, 19462 of 1999 and 19555 of 1999 are cognizable by the learned single judge, but no special appeal is maintainable arising out of the order in the said proceedings, while the first appeal no. (248) of 2002 is cognizable by the Division Bench as the valuation of said appeal is 22,74,966.28 Paise.
That on one hand the writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 was presented on 15/7/1992, while simultaneously the parallel proceedings in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act was initiated in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. However, simultaneously other collateral proceedings having L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj were initiated before the Additional District Judge U/S 18 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but the said proceedings U/S 18 of Land Acquisition Act were stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 ( Paras Ram vs II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and others) and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 (Gajraj vs. II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad & Others)on 12/5/1999. That even in the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was filed by Paras Ram in respect of order dated 7/4/1999 in which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the Paras Ram to issue notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who has recorded his appearance in the aforesaid case in pursuance of order passed on 12/5/1999 in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999.
That on one hand the petitioner is persuading the present remedy for realisation of alleged compensation in which the writ petition was finally dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu and without having any order being obtained on the review application, the order dated 10/4/2002 has been obtained by Paras Ram behind the back of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala. The aforesaid order passed by this Hon’ble Court is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court as justice may be done with the rights of bonfide title owner and actual receipient of the amount of compensation in the tune of Rs. 22,74, 966.28 Paisa. That although the collateral proceedings initiated in different forum are prohibited to run simultaneously in view of restriction imposed under section 10 of C. P. C. read with principle of constructive res judicata. acquiescence and estoppel.
That at the very outset, it is most humbly submitted that the order passed on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. Gaziabad in L.A.R No. 421 of 1992, U/S 30 of land Acquisition Act has been decided by impugned order and judgement beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the reference made regarding apportionment of the amount of compensation under the aforesaid provision. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Sharada Devi Versus State of Bihar 2003 (3) SCC 128 has laid down that since under section 3 (b) and (c) of Land Acquisition Act, the definition of “person interested” and the “Collector” have been defined.
That a dispute, as to the pre-existing right or interest in the property sought to be acquired, is not a “dispute” capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either u/s 30 of the Act. Thus the order passed u/s 30 on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity, and therefore liable to be declared so.
That, the matter of apportionment does not fail within ambit of “Dispute” under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but it appears that the learned A. D. J. has passed the judgement and order dated 29/4/2002 in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 wholly without jurisdiction in the aforesaid matter while deciding the case U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act as that of a declaratory suit, which is not permissible within eyes of law.
That u/s 12 (1) and section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, the finality of the award is attributed between the “persons interested”. The definition of “persons interested” speaks of or interest in the compensation to be made. Thus invoking section 30 of land Acquisition Act, to the pre-existing right on the land and entitlement of compensation, may only be left upon to be adjudicated by any independent proceedings.
That the said order has been passed in derogation to present proceedings initiated by way of filing the present writ petition and the same is not illegal and void, but on account of making as abuse of process through reprehensible conduct of petitioner, the same are also contemptuous in the light of the case of Advocate General Bihar vs M/S Madhya Pradesh Khair Industry 1981 (3) S. C. C. 311.
That the S. L. A. O. passed an order and Award on 19/9/1990 illegally, stating therein that although the compensation to the extent of half of the award as per the name being recorded in the revenue record in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala is payable, but the same in the tune of Rs. 11,33,983.40 Paisa is still required for disbursement, but the court below has further exceeded the power, propriety and jurisdiction in passing the impugned order depriving the petitioner from total amount of compensation beyond the scope of the reference made U/S 30 of land acquisition Act. That in the revenue records the name of Jasbinder Singh Bala was recorded from the dated of execution of Registered sale deed, which was still continuing.
That ultimately the writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was dismissed on 23/9/1996. Surprisingly without giving any notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala in furtherance of the alleged restoration application in writ petition No. 23591 of 1992, Paras Ram got an order ex party behind the back of the petitioner for disbursement of an amount of Rupees 11,37,483.14 Paisa . This an abuse of the process in calculated manners , which is a criminal contempt .Advocate General, Bihar Vs. M/S Kher Industries 1980 (3) SCC 311. On 29.4.2002, in the Impugn order in LAR NO.421 of 1992 has been passed by the II nd ADJ Ghaziabad under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the registered sale deed dated 25.11.1968 executed about 34 years back by Gaj Raj has been set aside while on the basis of frivolous entry recorded by order dated 18. 12. 1981 fraudulently from Assistant SDM even after dismissal of the revision by Additional SDO and Additional Commissioner on 12.9. 1975 and 2.6.1976 respectively which is void and ab initio .
That on one hand, the present proceedings U/S 30 are dealt with, while simultaneously the proceedings U/S 18 ,30 of Land Acquisition Act bearing L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj are pending in the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid proceedings Jasbinder Singh Bala moved an application for impleading him as the party, which was allowed by order dated 8/4/1999.
That feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 were filed in which notices were issued to the deponent.
That surprisingly enough to state that although a writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 has been filed for quashing the order dated 7/4/1999 passed by the Court below, in which in compliance of order of District Judge to decide the case expeditiously and the issues was directed to decide at one time of both the parties. It is submitted that Paras Ram has also sought for quashing the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 which has been decided by the judgement dated 29/4/2002 in spite the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999.
That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 filed by Paras Ram, wherein he has sought for setting aside the proceedings of Reference case no. 421 of 1992 on the issue of Res judicata and also sought for staying the further proceedings of reference no. 421 of 1992 pending before IInd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and as such since there was no occasion to proceed further in deciding the matter on 29/4/2002 during pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and as such the judgement and decree dated 29/4/2002 and 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside as the said proceedings has been decided in derogation to the proceedings in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 filed by Paras Ram.
That on 9.5.2002, the Petitioner filed the review application for reviewing the order dated 29.4.2002 , which has been dismiassed on 3.2.2003 by ( Smt. Sadhana Choudhary) the 2nd ADJ herself .
That thereafter the appellant moved an application before the District Judge, Ghaziabad on 11.7.2002 seeking transfer of review application through transfer application no. 397 of 2002 and when the District Judge rejected the said application on 17-8-2002, the prayer were incorporated in relations thereof in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That ultimately Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary then posted as IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad rejected the review application on 3-2-2003 by the detail order, wherein the jurisdictional error committed in passing the order dated 29-4-2002 was pointed out by the counsel for the appellant.
That the order passed in review application no. 31 of 2002 on 3-2-2003 was also challenged by filing an amendment application on 12-3-2003 bearing amendment application no…… of 2003 in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002. However, the counter affidavit was called upon on the aforesaid amendment application by an order dated 29-12-2003, but the said amendment application remained pending till the decision of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 decided on 17.11.2005 on the ground of its maintainability.
On 12.3.2003 the amendment Application challenging the order dated 3.2.2003 rejecting the review Application No.31 of 02 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad is filed. That in this manner, there has been multiplicity of the proceedings taken place upto this stage by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 ( Paras Ram vs. State of U.P ), writ petition no. 19462 of 1996 ( Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P.), writ petition No. 19555 of 1996 ( Gajraj vs. State of U.P.) and writ petition no. 19572 of 1996 ( Paras Ram versus State of U.P.) and also the order dated 10-4-2002, which were clearly demonstrative of the facts that against an Army Personnel, who has sacrificed his life for providing security to the citizens against external aggression is jeopardising his right not on account of only the manipulated and frivolous proceeding instituted by Paras Ram and Gajraj, but also on account of orders passed and obtained by this persons from this Hon’ble Court.
That according to the settled proposition of law advanced by the Apex Court, the latest decision on the point of making / forwarding the reference by S.L.A.O to the court of District judge/ Additional District Judge, the individual should be the ‘ PERSON INTERESTED’ as defined under section 9 (3) of L.A. Act (Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta 2005 (12) SCC Page 1 and a stranger to the award namely Gajraj . who sold his land on 25.11.1968 through Registered Sale Deed is not entitled to claim his entitlement for compensation in the present reference . The present reference is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of A.I.R. 1965 S.C. Page 304 has clearly held that the pre-existing right of the person whose name does not find place in the award may not get entitlement for moving the reference either u/s 18 or 30 of the L.A. Act. That in case of Mehar Rusi Dalal Vs. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 362 / A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3491, it has been held that the person who is not entitled to make the reference u/s 18, the said person was not interested to get the decision for realisation of award u/s 30 regarding his alleged apportionment of the share. Thus the judgment dated 29.4.2002 is de hors to the provisions and non est. , which has no evidencery value against the right of the objector to realize the entire compensation.That the Hon’ble Supreme court has further held in case of Ahad Bross vs. State of M.P. 2005 ( 1 )SCC page 545 that a person who is not the’ person interested” may not agitate any claim u/s 18 of the L.A. Act. Thus the present reference filed by Gajraj is liable to be rejected.
That the objector had already moved to the S.L.A.O. for referring the reference u/s 18 on 6/7 April, 1989 to the District Judge Ghaziabad, but inspite the acceptance of the aforesaid application by the rival group of the claimants, the same has not been independently registered as the reference. Thus apart from being impleaded as the respondent, the objector was having his independent right to get the realisation of award of Rs. 22.74.966.28 Paise from the Court of I1nd Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad. The order and judgment passed on 29.4.2002 followed with a decree dated 4.5.2002 is a nullity and non est for having evidence value to curtail the right of the objector for realisation of compensation. The review application after due amendment in the prayer of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 filed by the objector is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court.
That in this manner the claim of the objector is squarely covered within the purview of maintainability of application of award independently as well as by virtue of being impleaded in the present reference by order dated 7.4.1999 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High court on 10.11.2005 rejecting the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 filed by Gajraj.
That this stage on 29-4-2002 the L.A.R. No. 421 of 1992 was decided as de hors to the said provisions of apportionment of the compensation between the ‘INTERESTED PERSON’, which could not have the jurisdiction entail to decide it as a “DISPUTE” nor the adjudication of “ PRE-EXISTENT RIGHT ”, if any, could have been taken place by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District judge, Ghaziabad declaring Paras Ram and Gajraj, being entitled to get the compensation of 50 – 50 percent calculated as Rs. 22,74,966.28 Paise i.e. each were entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.11,37,483.14 Paise.
That surprisingly the decree was also prepared of said amount on 4-5-2002 against which the appellant fled review application on 9-5-2002 seeking review of the order dated 29-4-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That on 9-5-2002 the appellant filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble court bearing writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 with the following prayers :-
1) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursement of amount awarded in pursuance of judgement dated 29-4-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, during the pendency of Reference 18 of the Act between the parties.
2) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declaration of the amount of Rs.22,966.28 paise on the basis of impugned judgement dated 29-4-2002 in favour of respondent no. 4 and 5 in the proceedings u/s 30 decided like a declaratory suit by setting aside the registered sale deed executed on 25-11-1968 as unconstitutional and void.
3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-8-2002 passed by respondent mo.6 rejecting the transfer application no, 397 of 2002,
4) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus in the alternative that proceedings of review application no. 31 of 2002 may kindly be directed to be decided by some other Addl. District judge in view of the fact that matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for initiating an enquiry and for directing the same to be decided by the Court nominated by District Judge, Ghaziabad.
5) To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”
That in the meantime, since the memo of appeal was also prepared in July, 2002 for which the appellant was not sure as to whether the Ad-volerum court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise is required to be paid or not ?, after filing the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 ( Major Jasbinder Singh Bala Vs. II Addl. District Judge Ghaziabad & others), it was deemed proper to filed the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That the facts regarding preparation of the First Appeal was clearly mention in the Paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition, which states the clear picture emerged at the time of filing the writ petition on 5-9-2002 and regarding the preparation of memo of appeal stating Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise reported as Ad-volerum court fees required to be paid. Thus filing of writ petition and filing of defective First Appeal being considered by taking all such back grounds into mind, it is submitted that the appellant has availed both the remedies with the different prayers, on which the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 and the defective First Appeal was filed on 5-9-2002. The paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is reproduced as under :-
“ 42. That the Appellant is also submitted that there is no remedy for the Appellant to challenge the order and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 respectively passed by IInd additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in L.A.R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of land acquisition Act. There is proceedings of section 54 of Land acquisition Act to file the First Appeal in respect of cases decided u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein a decree could have been passed after determination of amount in respect of entitlement of different claimants. In case the Appellant pursue the remedy of filing the appeal, he is required to deposits Rs.1.71.032.50 Paise as the Court fees for the said appeal as the courts fees ad-volerum is required to be paid. Thus the aforesaid appeal is neither amenable for the Appellant to have been filed by depositing such a huge amount for conferring his right specially under the circumstances when the respondents has himself proceeded to file the writ petition no. 23591 of 192, it has been held in Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234 that the award given by land Acquisition Officer is not a decree within meaning of section 2 (2) of C.P.C. and as such, the same is not tenable for execution by Civil court and thus the writ petition is amenable for realization of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.”
That an application was filed by the appellant under Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice are reproduced as under :-
“ In his application dated 4th November 2003 filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38064 / 2002, Sri Y.K. Saxena, Advocate, counsel for Appellant has made a prayer that the said writ petition be decided along with writ petition no. 23591/1992, Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P. and other, writ petition no. 19572/1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and others, writ petition no. 19462 /1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, writ petition no. ------ Gajraj Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ( the number of the writ petition has not been mentioned in the prayer but it appears that writ petition Number should be 19555/1999) and First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
By order dated 09-09-2002, writ petition nos. 19462/1999 and 19555/1999 have been connected with this writ petition ( W.P. No. 38064/2002 )
In the present writ petition (No. 38064/2002) the Appellant has prayed for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursing the amount awarded in pursuance of judgment passed in L.A.R. 421/1992 (with respect to land Khasra No. 45 area 2-3-0 and Khasra No. 639, area 5-0-0), situated at Prahlad Garhi, Loni, Ghaziabad.
In writ petition no. 23591/2002 the Appellant has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent to make payment of compensation in respect of the same land (Para No. 1 of this writ petition).
In writ petition No, 19572/1999, the Appellant has sought a relief of certiorari quashing order dated 07-0 –1999 rejecting the application of the Appellant to decide the point of res judicata preliminarily, and also seeking mandamus to decide the same. A prayer for stay of the proceedings of the said case has also been made. The case mentioned in the said petition is also in respect of the land ( para no. 4 of the petition).
In First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 the award of compensation made in respect of the acquisition of the aforesaid land has been challenged.
In view of the aforesaid facts, all the above cases relates to the same subject matter.
Report submitted for kind perusal.”
“” The matters are assigned to the bench presided over by Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.””
Sd. Hon’ble The chief Justice Dated 17-11-2003
That in the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C., the opposition was made by the counsel of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant as the appellant has already requested to his counsel, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That the impleadment application was allowed by this Hon’ble Court on the same date having the impleadment of state of U.P. through Secretary Avas, Secretariat, Lucknow and District Magistrate/ Collector Ghaziabad as parties to array of respondents being respondent no. 7 and 8 respectively, which was also incorporated on 18.12.2003 by the counsel for the appellant, The order allowing the impleadment application and inviting counter affidavit on two amendment applications ( one for seeking quashing of order dated 3-2-2003 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad for which amendment application was filed on 12-3-2003 and another amendment having writ of certiorari for setting aside the judgement dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ).
That the said orders were passed in view of facts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in number of cases including in case of Dr. Grant case (Supra ), Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad has not only committed an error by deciding the reference of section 30 of L. A. Act pertaining to apportionment like that of civil suit, but also decided the pre-existing right therein. The orders passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad on 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 are non est and nullity, which can appropriately be challenged by incorporating additional prayer and thus the burden of this Hon’ble court will be lightened for deciding the fact as to whether ad-volerum court fees is at all may be required to be paid and as to whether the appellant is an indigent person or not ?. Thus in this back ground coupled with incapability of appellant to pay the aforesaid court fees, the defective First Appeal was withdrawn by keeping into mind that same is not amenable against a judgment regarding apportionment of compensation claim decided under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
That in this context, it is further submitted that as the appeal lies only against a judgement passed in reference under section 18 of L. A. Act i.e. under section 54 of L. A. Act and when the provisions of appeal are itself in existence in the aforesaid special enactment created by the Parliament, there may not be the appeal required to be filed under section 96 against the order and decree passed under section 30 of L. A. Act by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad having the adjudication of the said proceedings as that of civil suit and that too regarding pre-existing right fabricated on account of wrong mutation entry obtained by Paras Ram by committing fraud upon the statute and also to the proceedings of this Hon’ble Court, which were simultaneously conducted by them ( Paras Ram and Gajraj ) on the basis of which the bench presided over by DR. B.S. Chauhan was nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Thus withdrawal of defective first appeal may not construed as that of forfeiture of rights of appellant for ever as he has acted on the basis of legal advise taken from different lawyers of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the lawyers of this Hon’ble Court and thus without moving any application the defective first appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by the nominated bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
That ultimately on 10-11-2005, when the arguments were advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram then all the 5 writ petitions were taken together and at that time an objection was raised that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 us barred by constructive Res judicata on account of dismissal of defective first appeal no. (248) of 2002 filed in respect of similar relief. The counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram and Gajraj also raised the allegation of forum hunting. It is submitted that when the counsel for the appellant made counter allegations against Paras Ram and Gajraj regarding forum hunting by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, then all such writ petitions were sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 itself.
That similarly the writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 were also sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 as the allegation of forum hunting raised against the rank usurpers Paras Ram and Gajraj may not be leveled against them and as such they sought for withdrawal of all 4 writ petitions and the matter was confined only to writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 by forgiving all such back grounds remained there at the time of filing the aforesaid writ petition and connecting all such 5 writ petitions and defective appeal by an order dated 17-11-2003.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
That against the dismissal of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the appellant filed the Special Leave to Appeal no. 2946 of 2006 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been dismissed simplicitor in limine without permitting the appellant to get it converted in Civil Appeal, may not bar the filing of the present Review application before this Hon’ble Court.
That since this Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
That the appellant is an Ex-Army personnel and on account of incapability of the appellant to approach this Hon’ble Court in the different forum of redressal of grievances and thus remained acting on the basis of advise given by the many prominent counsel of Hon’ble Supreme Court and only thereafter has instructed his counsel to withdraw the defective first appeal on 17-11-2003 as the appellant remained under the impression that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and three other writ petitions filed in the years 1999 are maintainable, while the appeal does not lies under section 54 and section 96 may not be attracted in the present case. That it is, however, in fact and circumstances of case that this Hon’ble Court has held on 17-11-2005 that writ petition no. 38064 0f 2002 is not maintainable and the Special Leave to Appeal filed against the said judgment has been dismissed summarily. The appellant is seeking recall of order dated 17-12-2003 that the appellant is a old person running at the age of 83 years and suffering from malign cancer. He has got the impairment of speech and is unable to walk like that of ordinary person. He has given a youth time for protecting integrity of our nation till his retirement after 1965 war and thus the appellant is tendering his unqualified apology for permitting him to withdraw his defective appeal by giving said instruction to his counsel under the wrong legal advise of prominent counsel practicing in Hon’ble Supreme Court. That under these circumstances, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the order dated 17-11-2003 may kindly be recalled / reviewed in the light of aforesaid circumstances of case. The defective appeal may be restored to its original number, as justice may be done with the rights of the appellant.
Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate, being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.
Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, S/o Sri Bachan Singh Bala,R/o- Bala Farm, Sector –9 Vaishali , Ghaziabad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)