Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.@mdashHeard Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the first writ petition and Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the second writ petition learned standing counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 and Sri A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority which is Respondent No. 100 in the first writ petition and Respondent No. 5 in the second writ petition, and learned Counsel for proforma Respondents in first writ petition, i.e. Respondents 5 to 99 which term includes legal representatives of deceased Respondents. All substitution and impleadment applications are allowed. The first order challenged through these writ petitions is order dated 10.08.2000 passed by S.D.O./Assistant Collector Ist Class Ghaziabad in case No. 20 of 1999-2000 u/s 33/39 U.P. Land Revenue Act. The case was initiated on the basis of report of the then Deputy Collector Ghaziabad dated 31.03.2000 and consequent direction of D.M. Ghaziabad dated 17.04.2000. The purpose was to ascertain the correctness and the validity of entry of name of the Petitioners and proforma Respondents over plot No. 421/1 area 3 bigha 10 biswa and other plots as Bhomidhar with transferee right with effect 1386 fasli (1978-79 A.D.). The land is situate in village Banthala. The land in dispute was initially Gaon Sabha land and Petitioners and proforma Respondents were claiming to be allottees of Gaon Sabha land. The land had been acquired under Land Acquisition Act through notification u/s 4 and 6 Land Acquisition Act dated 19.03.1991 and 17.05.1991. On inquiry it was found that Khatauni of the year 1386 fasli was not available in the records. Tehsildar further reported that the file of allotment of the order 1979 was also not available in the office and patta register was also missing and further name of no alleged allottee found place in the register Malikana.
2. Inquiry Officer also enquired from the officer in-charge of the record room who informed that khatauni of 1386 Fasli was not sent to the record room. In the impugned order it is mentioned that khatauni from 1392 to 1397 Fasli was perused and matter was enquired from the then Pradhan and Sri Krishan Singh son of one of the alleged allottees. It is further mentioned that the entry of allotment was made in the khatauni from 1392 to 1397 Fasli from Serial No. 1 to 270 and at 270-A, names of bhumidhars with non-transferable rights were mentioned. The S.D.O. in the impugned order observed that there was no occasion to make the entry against number 270-A instead new number 271 should have been recorded in the relevant register khatauni.
3. Even though a very thorough discussion of the entire available material has been made in the order dated 10.08.2000, however the only defect is that alleged allottees were not heard. Against the said order, Avadesh and all other alleged allottees (total 86 applicants) filed Revision No. 84 of 1991-92. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissed the revision on 20.08.2002. Both these orders have been challenged through these writ petitions.
4. I decided Writ Petition No. 14688 of 2000, Karnail Singh and Ors. v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others on 03.03.2008. It was a similar matter pertaining to village Chara Sahadatpur. Paras 3 & 4 of the said judgment are quoted below:
Large areas of the land in the village in question and adjoining villages were either acquired by the Government for NOIDA or were resumed u/s 117 (6) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. Under the said provision land given to gaon sabha by the State may be resumed. After resumption of land it was given to NOIDA. Acquisition of the land in the village in question and adjoining villages took place on 1.6.1976 and resumption order was passed on 1.12.1982. There is no dispute that 10 or 11 years revenue records of the area in question are missing i.e. from 1378 fasli to 1387 fasli corresponding to 1970 A.D. to 1980 A.D. On behalf of State Supplementary affidavit has been filed on the date on which arguments were completed and judgment was reserved and learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that he did not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit. In the said counter affidavit it has been stated that some interested persons and some officers/officials of the State were responsible in the loss of the revenue records of the period 1970 to 1980 and taking advantage of the said loss several persons got their names recorded in the revenue records and received huge amount as compensation and in an enquiry conducted by the then Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow it revealed that the fraud which was of a high level and manipulation in revenue records resulted in loss of crores of rupees to the government. It has further been stated that as a result of enquiry land ad measuring 272 hectares has been returned to the government valuation of which was Rs. 2201 crores. However, cases in courts are not decided on the basis of suspicion. It has not been stated that in the said enquiry matter in dispute was also investigated.
5. If in order to illegally get the compensation, Petitioners or other alleged allottees forged the documents of allotment then not only the said allotment is to be ignored and declared null and void but all such persons are also liable to be prosecuted for forgery etc. However, before passing the impugned orders, it was utmost essential to hear the Petitioners and other alleged allottees vide Chaturgan v. State 2005 (98) RD 244. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and both the impugned orders are set aside. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Collector, Ghaziabad on 10.01.2011 along with certified copy of this judgment and their detailed objections. If they do not appear on the said date, then these writ petitions shall be treated to have been dismissed. The Collector shall get published a notice in daily Hindi newspaper ''Amar Ujala'' or ''Dainik Jagaran'' published from the place nearest from Ghaziabad fixing a date in the second fortnight of February, 2011 for hearing all those alleged allottees who were affected by the order dated 10.08.2000. Publication shall be made at least ten days before the date fixed. On the said date after hearing such alleged allottees who appear either personally or through advocates the Collector shall pass fresh order. If the Collector finds that forged claim was made by the allottees then not only the alleged pattas shall be declared forged, null and void but criminal proceedings also must at once be lodged by filing FI Rs. However no FIR shall be lodged against such alleged allottee who does not appear before the Collector. Until final decision of the Collector, the amount of compensation shall not be paid to any one. After the final decision of the Collector, the compensation shall be paid/ returned in accordance with the said order.
6. Office is directed to supply a copy of this judgment free of cost to Sri S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel for sending the same to the Collector, Ghaziabad at once. Copy of judgment shall also be supplied free of cost to Sri A.K. Mishra, learned standing counsel for Ghaziabad Development Authority.
