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.
No comments:
Post a Comment