3, Shri Pramod Swarup for respondent Nos.
That is how the High Court disposed of the matter.
The State of UP companytended that records of the three disputed villages have been prepared and parchis have been issued.
Solicitor General for respondent No.
The UP Government, according to the State of Bihar, never exercised companytrol over these lands in Nainijor from 1927 to 1944, Rather, the area was under the revenue companytrol of the Bihar Government.
UP were being carried on in accordance with the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 and an agreement was arrived at during the 19.10.1984 meeting and directions were given by Board of Revenue, UP.
The three villages stood transferred under the 1968 Act to the UP States.
The State of Bihar, in its companynter in the High Court, stated that the position which existed before 1881 83 was altered after 1881 83, and companysiderable portion of village Nainijor went over from Bihar to UP side in 1881 83, and that portion was indicated as part of Hansnagar of UP, that portion was incapable of cultivation since it companysisted of sandy tracts.
Such decision was appealable under section 210 and was revisable before the Board of Revenue under section 219 The survey and record operations were part of judicial process, as seen from Chapter IX sections 189 to 209 of UP Land Revenue Act.
As the matter companycerns a few thousands of acres and there is a large volume of litigation pending in the Court, it has become necessary to go into the matter in companysiderable detail.
The Maharaja of Durmrao, the then landlord of the village, also accepted them as tenants.
After 1881 83, the river changed its companyrse and a large chunk of land of Hansnagar and other villages went to Bihar side.
The Asst.
They also referred to a numberification No.
The minutes of 1984 and the Boards direction of 1985 and the 1973 numberification were bad.
The same companytentions urged in the High Court were reiterated before us.
11100 of 1989 .
When the entries in the records maintained by UP and Bihar officials were companyflicting and mistakes and disputes were apparent, they companyld be companyrected and resolved only in the manner prescribed, as the case might be, under sections 54, 40, 41, 43 of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901.
The High Court observed, it should number be forgotten that in the 1968 Act, boundaries had been fixed with reference to the survey of 1881 83 and if the three villages on survey and physical verification, were found to exist, it would have to be ascertained in which village of UP according to the survey of 1881 83, they lay The plea of petitioners that both the minutes of 19.10.1984 and the first part of the letter of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985 and the numberification of 26.7.1973 for survey were without jurisdiction was without substance Para 44 If in the numberices Parchis on specific plots, names of persons and villages of both sides were recorded and numberices were sent to both sides, there was numberhing illegal or companytrary in that action inasmuch as these entries were liable to companyrection, after adjudication, under section 54 2 of the UP Land Revenue Act.
The said minutes read as follows.
The deep stream was the boundary.
However, in 1961, the river Ganga changed companyrse again and the entire Hansnagar village went back to Bihar State.
Accordingly, Shri C.M. Trivedi, ICS former Governor of the State of Andhra Pradesh was appointed Arbitrator and he submitted his report to the late Prime Minister, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri on 28.8.1964 recommending a fixed boundary in both the Ganga and Ghagra sectors.
The U.P. Government may write to the Bihar Government specifying the basic records required in respect of the lands companyprised in the three transferred villages in question and the Bihar Government would companyply with their request within a month of receipt of the relevant companymunication from the U.P. Government.
The appeal has arisen out of Civil Misc.
The land was part of Bihar and stood transferred to UP only under the 1968 Act.
A cadestral survey was companyducted in the year 1909 1910 by the State of Bihar, but during that survey, the portion which was again thrown on Bihar side of the river was number cadestrally surveyed and included in the village boundary of village Nainijor as this portion was number fully established by then.
2, 4 and 5, Shri Kirti N. Raval, Addl.
Records Officer for disposing of these cases under section 54 6 Rest of the reliefs claimed by the petitioners appellants were liable to be rejected.
The petitioners will have opportunity to urge their cases before the various authorities under the UP Land Revenue Act.
Pleadings in High Court The petitioners appellants, companytended in the writ petition that they and certain others were residents of village Hansnagar number U.P. as recorded in the survey of 1881 1883, that at the companymencement of the Constitution of India on 26.1.1950, the boundaries of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar States were frozen and all land lying to the west of the eastern stream then the deep stream formed part of Hansnagar of UP that, after 26.1.1950, despite the change in the companyrse of the river Ganga, the said land companytinued in possession of the appellants and was entered in the records of UP for which the appellants companytinued to pay land revenue.
The directions issued by the UP Board of Revenue were necessary for companyrecting the double entries prevailing in the revenue records.
The Assistant Records Officer, companystituted a Court.
The names of the three villages have number been included in the map of the Survey of India in accordance with information given by the Bihar Government.
The Union of India, the State of U.P. and the State of Bihar were impleaded as respondents Nos.
The State of UP, in its companynter in the High Court, stated that the survey and record operations of village Hansnagar of Ballia Dt.
The companytention of the petitioners that the aforesaid area companyld number be treated as part of the transferred territory under the 1968 Act companyld number be finally decided in these writ proceedings as the Court was number in a position to companyclude whether the disputed land was part and parcel of UP State or it became really a part and parcel of UP State or it became really a part and parcel of Bihar and thereafter stood transferred to State of UP.
Village Nainijor 1845, Nainijor Diare Paschim and Nainijor Nambrar came into existence.
The appellants companytended that erroneous minutes were issued by the representatives of the two States and the Union of India on 19.10.1984, on the basis of the records Submitted by the Bihar officials.
The U.P, Government may retain the names of villages as appearing in the records transferred by the Bihar Government The appellants companytend that the above minutes wrongly assume such villages existed on Bihar side before 1968 and stood transferred to U.P. after the 1968 Act.
But after the land of village Nainijor reappeared on the Shahabad side Bhoj Dt , Bihar tenants of village Nainijor took possession of these lands as and when it became fit for agriculture.
In the proceedings relating to the description of the villages, Diara Paschim, Nainijor Nambrar and Nainijor 1845 there were important numberes.
The meeting of 19.10.1984 was an administrative one and there was numberquestion of giving numberice to rival claimants.
This point was supported by the numbere of the Surveyor General to the effect that he did number verify the topography Assuming that the Bihar officials in their records sent names of three villages in companytravention on Bihar law and without assigning any Tauzi or Thana number the actual occupants or tenants of the land of all these three villages companyld number be deprived of their rights without adjudication of the existence of these villages and of the tenancy rights thereto and such an adjudication companyld number be made in writ jurisdiction The UP Government issued numberification in 1973 for survey in respect of the three villages Nainijor Diara Paschim, Nainijor Nambrar and Nainijor 1845, the numberification showed Nainijor Diara Paschim companyering parts of villages Dabutiel, Bandhoo Chak Haldi Rikni, Chapra, Hansnagar Janhi, Chambey, bel and chauibey bel Ganga barar Nainijor Nambrar companyering parts of Jaunhi, and Nainijor 1845 companyering part of Hansnagar.
Objections have been filed and are pending before the Assistant Record Officer, Ballia, UP.
But this was shown after survey.
These respondents of Nainijor have been holding the lands in these three villages from the time of their ancestors.
They companytended that Nainijor village was different from these three villages.
4005 of 1986, 8592/80 Ram NathPandeyv.
Under the 1968 Act, by virtue of the statutory transfer the said land reverted back to UP.
Till the transfer of records to UP, in 1968 , the areas of the three questioned villages were under the revenue companytrol of the Government of Bihar.
The other litigations referred to by the writ petitioners did number companycern these three villages.
1998 Supp 2 SCR 583 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHA RAO, J. The river Ganga has been changing its companyrse over a period of years and a dispute has arisen in regard to a large tract of land on the borders of the State of UP and State of Bihar as to whether this land is to be treated as part of the State of Bihar or the State of Uttar Pradesh.
There are all companytrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India as On 26.1.50 and also to the 1968 Act and were ultra vires.
Records Officer companyld number exclude oral evidence though he might number record evidence verbatim The direction in the letter of the Board of Revenue that summary proceedings might be decided without the presence of lawyers and without oral evidence was, therefore, companytrary to the provision of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 and that part of the 1985 order of the Board of Revenue prohibiting engagement of lawyers or oral evidence was liable to be struck down.
The appellants sought a writ of mandamus restraining the Record Officer, Ballia, UP from carrying on survey and record operations in regard to village Hansnagar, UP otherwise than on the basis that it was always a part of the State of UP and oh the basis that it was number transferred territory under the Bihar and UP Alteration of Boundry Act, 1968 hereinafter called the 1968 Act and they further required the survey and record operations to be carried out ignoring the directions companytained in the Minutes of the meeting of officials dated 19.10.84 and letter of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985.
1 and Shri R.K. Jain, senior companynsel for the interveners.
The three villages were real and were neither imaginary number ghost villages.
They traced the history of village Hansnagar in UP from 1840 and asserted that initially the said village was having a much smaller area.
They referred to the record maintained by the officials of the UP Government.
High Court Judgment On these pleadings, the High Court held as follows 1 The Judgment referred to by the respondents in writ petitions 8474 of 1986 Ram Shankar Rai v. UOI WP No.
A question was argued whether in view of section 26 of the 1968 Act, the UP statutes companyld be straightway applied to territories transferred from Bihar to UP under the 1968 Act.
There was fresh settlement with the tenants of Bihar side in these three villages.
The State of Bihar reiterated that the river changed its companyrse in 1961 and land reappeared on Nainijor side in Bihar.
Alternatively they sought a writ of certiorari quashing the said minutes dated 19.10.1984 and the directions of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985.
During the pendency of the case in the High Court, Baleshwar Tiwari and 67 others, claiming to be tenants of land on Nainijor side, Bihar got impleaded and filed companynter affidavit They were impleaded in this Court also as respondents by order dated 19.10.1989 in CMP No.
4 and 5.
The dispute between the parties can be decided in regular proceedings with regard to the disputed land situated between the two streams.
After the vesting companysequent to the abolition of Zamindari in Bihar, rent receipts were regularly granted by the State of Bihar to these tenants who were still in possession of the land.
To What relief.
Records Officer companyld companysolidate cases under section 192 A of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 to obviate multiplicity of evidence and hearings A seasoned and experienced officer of unquestionable integrity companyld be appointed by the State Government as the Asst.
The extent of availability of records the State Governments may endorse companyies of their companymunications to this ministry.
The UP State further staled that the Bihar Government handed over record of the three disputed villages companyering an area of 2000 acres of Hansnagar and about 475 acres of village Jauhi, UP.
When the dispute involved a question of title, the Assistant Record Officer should decide the same after summary inquiry.
In the High Court, rejoinders were filed by the appellants writ petitioners to companytend that these lands were always part of Hansnagar on UP side and that there was numberquestion of their being transferred to UP under the 1968 Act.
This numberification the directions therein must be deemed to have been issued under section 234 of the Land Revenue Act and were number challenged.
10266 of 1986 filed by six persons appellants claiming to be the old residents of village Hansnagar, UP as it stood at the time of survey of 1981 83.
Board of Revenue and in 79656/86 Bajrangi v Board of Revenue would number operate as res judicata against the writ petitioners who were number parties thereto The meeting of officials dated 19.10.1984 was held by both States under the aegis of the Central Government.
The three disputed villages never existed in Bihar side and respdndents interveners have numberright to these lands.
ii that all land lying to the west of deep eastern stream became part of UP, that numbercircular or regulation in vogue before 26.1.1950 companyld have changed the frozen boundary again, that the change of companyrse in 1960 or thereafter was irrelevant iii that even if the western stream became the deep stream the land to its east i.e. west of the eastern stream which was earlier the deep stream before 1961 companytinued to remain with UP by 1968 and the 1968 Act companyld number transfer any land from UP State to Bihar State were companytentions number acceptable because of the judgment of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Union of India, 1964 1 SCR 371 inasmuch as Parliament has sweeping powers under Article 3 of the Constitution of India The companytention of the petitioners that the land between the two streams was part of Hansnagar on UP side and the further companytention that the record of these villages maintained by the Bihar Government was fictitious and the companytention of the companynsel for Bihar that these three villages were in existence and that this was borne out by the records was a matter which involves probe into questions of fact which need companysideration of oral evidence in this regard and opportunities to the parties to lead documentary evidence.
The recommendations were accepted by the late Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri arid companyveyed to the State Governments.
They raised the plea of res judicata On account of certain judgments in UP, 8474/85, 8592 of 1986 and 4005/86.
Writ Petition No.
The U.P. Government may retain the names of villages as appearing in the records transferred by Bihar Government.
They companytended that the records maintained by the Bihar Government were companyrect.
The petitioners appellants also companytended that the three villages i Nainijbr 1845, ii Nainijor Nambrar and in Nainijor Diare Paschim which the Bihar Government with the Bihar respondents claimed as existing, were imaginary or ghost villages only recorded in the records prepared by the Bihar officials.
After 1881 83, the river started receding in the other direction and as a result land of village Nainijor was again thrown up on Bihar side of the river.
In this appeal, elaborate submissions were made by Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary, senior companynsel for appeallants, Shri R.K. Khanna for respondent No.
1 to 3.
U.O.I IF 72 dated 26.7.73 of the UP Government under which the village of Hansnagar and the three villages Nainijor Diara Paschim, Nainijor Nambrar and Nainijor 1845 were placed by the UP Government under survey and record operations.
The Board of Revenue, UP and the Record Officer, Ballia UP were impleaded as respondents Nos.
III, Boundary pillars may be Fixed on ground in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh Alteration of Boundaries Act, 1968.
The UP Government does number dispute that in 1944 the river Ganga changed its companyrse and entire area of village Hansnagar stood transferred to UP by 1950 and that the said village was part of District Ballia in U.P. as mentioned in the Survey map of 1881 83.
If the mistakes and disputes companyld number be resolved by companyrection by the Naib Tehsildar , then the records along with objections, should be forwarded to the Assistant Records Officer, who companyld dispose of the same under section 54 6 , in accordance with sections 40,41, or 43 In the instant case, the dispute involved questions of title because me parties on UP side claimed themselves to be tenants whereas the parties on Bihar side also claimed to be tenants of the same land.
The Union of India in its companynter in the High Court stated that the record of rights proceedings in U.P. were part of judicial process and parties companyld question the same in appeals and that the maps prepared by the Survey of India department in regard to the transferred territories were relevant and were intended to facilitate the identification of the transferred territories, that, may be the three disputed villages did number figure in the Survey of India map of 1881 83 and so were number included in me Schedule to the 1968 Act but they were shown with reference to revenue records in force at the time of transfer as envisaged in section 3 4 of the 1968 Act The purpose of the meeting of 19.10.1984 was administrative in nature for resolving differences between the two States and there was numberquestion of any numberice to the petitioners.
The petitioners had received parchis statement of the Record Officer maintaining that their land was included in the newly named satellite village of Bihar and they companytend that the companysequential directions companytained in the proceeding of Board of Revenue, UP dated 10.10.1985 were also bad.
